BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Motion made, That the Bill be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be considered on Thursday 24 January.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rail Fares

Heidi Alexander: What the maximum regulated rail fare rise was in January 2013.

Patrick McLoughlin: The average increase in regulated fares was 4.2%. An extremely small number of fares will have risen by 9.2%, but those will have been offset by reductions elsewhere. The “5% flex” policy was introduced by the previous Government.

Heidi Alexander: Commuters using Hither Green station in my constituency have seen their annual season ticket rise in the past two years from £856 to £944, yet overcrowding on routes into London remains horrendous. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give my constituents that this time next year overcrowding will be less and that there will not be huge profits going to train operating companies?

Patrick McLoughlin: One of the problems we face is that there is a huge demand and we have seen huge increases in the number of people using the railways. Matching that, the Government are pulling in huge investment. We have set out our plans for 2014 to 2019, as has Network Rail, which published its plans last week. I understand the concerns of the hon. Lady’s constituents, but I have to say that a lot of work needs to be done on investment.

Alan Haselhurst: If I am pressing my right hon. Friend, as indeed I am, to invest more in track capacity on the West Anglia line and to
	ensure that there is a purchase of new rolling stock soon, do I assist my constituents if at the same time on their behalf I ask him to peg fares, or even reduce them?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I met him this week and he made the case very strongly for extra and faster capacity for his constituents in the feed-in to Liverpool Street. He highlights the exact dilemma: people want extra investment and it has to be paid for. The Government are prepared to subsidise the railways and are doing so, but the passenger also has to pay for extra capacity and new trains.

Tom Greatrex: Many of my constituents, whether they are using local or cross-border services on the west coast main line, are frequently confused by the times at which they can use their tickets. Would it not be a sensible step to print on the tickets the precise time when they can be used, so that we end confusion and people do not end up paying fines.

Patrick McLoughlin: In some cases, those times are printed on pre-booked tickets. We are conducting a fares review, and I would like to see a much simpler ticket operating system so that people understand the fares they are being charged. The review is due to report in May, and that is one of the points I am looking at.

Roger Gale: The franchise agreement imposed by the previous Labour Government has meant that my constituents travelling from North Thanet have faced year-on-year increases way and above the average level. It now costs a huge sum of money to travel to London from Kent. It is an appalling service. Will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that Railtrack and Southeastern now deliver what my constituents are paying for?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have met with my hon. Friend to discuss the service in his constituency and in the rest of Kent. He has made a number of points that I will be discussing with Network Rail in due course.

Lilian Greenwood: Very straightforward: will the Secretary of State categorically rule out “super peak” fares? A simple answer will do: yes or no.

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said, the Department is undertaking a review of fares. That is not to look at a way of making fares more expensive, but to ensure that people understand how fares are delivered.

South West Rail Network (Flood Resilience)

Ben Bradshaw: What discussions he has had with Network Rail on improving the flood resilience of the south-west rail network.

Patrick McLoughlin: I had a number of conversations with Network Rail throughout December about improving the flood resilience of the south-west rail network. I also visited works on the west coast main line on new year’s eve, where I was able to discuss the issue in person with David Higgins, Network Rail’s chief executive.

Ben Bradshaw: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Between the end of November and the end of December, Devon and Cornwall were effectively cut off from the rest of the country by rail for two periods lasting more than a week each. That is not acceptable for rail travellers or our economy. Will he impress on Network Rail the absolutely urgency of tackling the problem at Cowley bridge in Exeter, which is the cause of most of the problems?

Patrick McLoughlin: The situation that people in the south-west faced over that period was unacceptable. It was the result of weather that we do not see often. I have talked to many Members who have made representations to me on that, and I have asked Network Rail to give a briefing to Members from those areas. That will take place in early February, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will attend.

Neil Parish: Further to the point by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), the Tiverton to Exeter line is extremely low and will be affected by flooding not only this year, but in future years. A substantial job needs to be done on that particular track of rail, so I urge the Secretary of State to do as much as he can to get Network Rail to put a package in place.

Patrick McLoughlin: I accept what my hon. Friend says and I hope that he will come to the meeting I am organising with Network Rail, which I will also attend. I am trying to break it into regions in the parts of the area served so that Members can discuss their concerns directly with Network Rail.

Adrian Sanders: There are two other important areas within the south-west that raise potential problems for the resilience of rail services. One is the rail line between Exeter and Honiton, which also floods, but most crucially there is the coastal route between Exeter and Newton Abbot, which for decades has required a great deal of maintenance. We want certainty about the future of the resilience of our rail services in the south-west.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and I are aware of the problems affecting the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the area he represents. As I said, at the meeting with Network Rail, we will be able to discuss in detail all the problems that Members are facing and—I hope—come to some solutions.

West Coast Main Line Franchise

David Crausby: What his latest estimate is of the cost to the public purse of cancelling the award of the west coast main line franchise; and if he will make a statement.

Patrick McLoughlin: I have stated that bidders will be remunerated in full for the reasonable costs of putting together and submitting their bids. As I reported to the Transport Committee on 10 January, I expect that figure to be in the region of £45 million.

David Crausby: I come from the world of industrial manufacturing, where incompetent mistakes get someone the sack. It occurs to me that in this Government no one gets the blame, while hard-working, travelling members of the public pay the price for the mistake through higher rail fares. Will the Secretary of State tell me exactly which Minister, if any, will take responsibility for his Government’s humiliation in this affair?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I have been very open with the House. I have made two or three statements to it about the incident involving the west coast main line, and I have commissioned two reports that have broadly been welcomed, I think, by the House. Both those who wrote the reports have given evidence to the Transport Committee, during which, Sam Laidlaw, who wrote the report on what went wrong in the Department, said that Ministers were not made aware.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Secretary of State for being so open with the House about this matter. It is an issue not just about the cost to the public purse, but about the potential for franchises to be delayed. In my constituency in Deal, we want a hard-won commuting high-speed service to be made an all-day high-speed service. Will he tell us what the impact of the delay might be?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said, two reports were conducted, one by Sam Laidlaw and the other by Richard Brown. I published the latter last week, and in the near future will make a statement to the House about how I intend to implement Mr Brown’s recommendations.

Mr Speaker: As the Clerk has very originally observed, the Secretary of State has brought the matter back on track. We are grateful to him.

Maria Eagle: The Laidlaw report is clear about where the blame lies for the west coast franchise fiasco—it was Ministers who decided to carry out a botched reorganisation of the Department that left no one in charge of rail, cut one third of the Department’s staff and axed external audits of procurement. Is it not a disgrace that with the well over £45 million of taxpayers’ money that the Secretary of State admits down the drain, every single one of those responsible Ministers is either still in the Cabinet or has been promoted to it?

Patrick McLoughlin: There are many ways in which one can read the report. The hon. Lady means to put her interpretation on it, and whatever I say will not change that interpretation. It is quite clear in the report that Ministers were not made aware of some of the problems, and if they had been referred up, different actions could have been taken.

Maria Eagle: If the Secretary of State will not accept what Laidlaw says about ministerial responsibility, perhaps he will accept the verdict of the Brown review, which is also clear about where the blame lies. It was the mistaken decision by Ministers to move to longer franchises as the rule, not the exception, and experiment with this risky new policy on the most complex franchise route.
	Instead of repeatedly blaming civil servants, who cannot answer back, when will Ministers finally take responsibility for this staggering waste of taxpayers’ money?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I have been very open with the House, and I have also commissioned inquiries. Initially the hon. Lady questioned their independence. I am glad that she is now happy to abide by those reports, which were clear that, had Ministers been warned, different actions could have been taken, which is exactly what the permanent secretary said before the Select Committee on Transport.

Rolling Stock Contracts

Chris Williamson: What recent progress he has made on the Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock contracts; and if he will make a statement.

Simon Burns: We aim to reach financial close on the Thameslink rolling stock contract early this year. The Crossrail rolling stock procurement is a live procurement exercise being run by Crossrail Ltd. It is due to announce the de-selection to two bidders in spring this year, with contract award expected in spring 2014.

Chris Williamson: The Chancellor says it is essential to cut unnecessary public expenditure, but the review of the inter-city express programme by Sir Andrew Foster shows that the Thameslink rolling stock programme will cost hundreds of millions of pounds more than necessary. How can the Transport Secretary justify wasting British taxpayers’ money to create highly skilled manufacturing jobs in Germany when he could have re-run the procurement process in a matter of months, with a tender process that better ensured that this massive investment of taxpayers’ money led to manufacturing jobs in Britain? I am worried that the same thing is going to happen with—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman; we have got the gist of it.

Simon Burns: Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the procurement process that was adopted in this tender process was established by his Government, not this Government?

Pauline Latham: I welcome the Government’s recent announcement on new trains for the Southern railway franchise. Can the Minister confirm what this will mean for workers in Derbyshire?

Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her for the work she has done on behalf of her constituents and Bombardier. The announcement before Christmas is extremely good news for Bombardier. I also know that, like me, she will be pleased that Bombardier is among the suppliers who have bid for the new Crossrail rolling stock order. Southern Rail has commenced a competitive procurement process for 116 rolling stock vehicles, with an option for a further 140 at a later date. Train manufacturers, including Bombardier, are bidding for that as well.

Louise Ellman: Siemens was announced as the preferred bidder for Thameslink rolling stock in June 2011. The contract has still not been completed. One of the consequences is a delay in the cascading of rolling stock from Thameslink to the north. When will that cascading now take place?

Simon Burns: I accept that there have been delays. A part of that is because this is a complex procurement process, and it obviously has to be done correctly and within the rules. In direct answer to the hon. Lady’s question, we expect the Thameslink contract to be finalised by the spring of this year, so that things can then move forward.

Colchester-London Rail Network

Bob Russell: What recent assessment he has made of the potential to increase the capacity of the railway network between Colchester and London.

Simon Burns: The Department has reviewed where capacity is required on the line between Colchester and London. We are also considering what capacity might be required in the period beyond 2019. There are plans to improve the rail service on the line between Colchester and London by providing additional infrastructure in the Chelmsford area, with a new station, possibly at Beaulieu Park, and possibly by increasing the speed of the line.

Bob Russell: I welcome that answer. I also welcome the fact that the Government are making a record national investment in our rail network, but there is a feeling along the whole of the Greater Anglia line that there has been some neglect. Will the Minister give the House an assurance, in advance of the major investment, that in the meantime one or more passing loops will be provided?

Simon Burns: We are determined, through record levels of infrastructure investment, to improve the quality of journeys for passengers. As someone who uses that line, however, I accept that there is room for improvement, and that has been ongoing. We have seen a total upgrading of the track, we are seeing an ongoing process of replacing the overhead cables, and stations are being refurbished, but more has to be done, and that will happen.

Chris Bryant: When did you last use the train?

Simon Burns: This morning.

Road Bottlenecks

Nicola Blackwood: What progress he has made on reducing bottlenecks in the road network.

Stephen Hammond: In the 2010 spending review, the Government committed £168 million for small schemes on the strategic road network. In the 2011 autumn statement, we introduced a new pinch point fund of
	£217 million to address the hot spots on the network. We have committed £188 million of that to deliver 65 schemes so far. In the 2012 autumn statement, that was increased to £317 million for the strategic road network, and a new £170 million pinch point fund was established for local authorities.

Nicola Blackwood: I thank the Minister for his answer, but the A34 in my constituency is still plagued by congestion and accidents. That causes daily misery for commuters on a personal level, and it also has a debilitating effect on the local economy. If the work force are stuck in gridlocked traffic, they are simply not being productive. Will the Minister come to Oxford West and Abingdon to meet local community and business leaders to hear their concerns at first hand?

Stephen Hammond: Like my hon. Friend, I recognise that the A34 is an important, busy and strategic route. We are developing route-based strategies as a key mechanism to inform what is needed on such routes. As she says, the ability to work with the local economic partnership and to look at the benefits to the local economy are key assessment criteria. I look forward to visiting her constituency.

Ian Austin: The House, and the whole country, will agree that one of the ways of reducing bottlenecks on the roads is to get more people on to bikes. When Ministers in the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government consider new road schemes and other major urban developments, why cannot they agree to British Cycling’s request that the impact on cyclists should be considered at the outset of all such schemes, rather than being treated as an add-on later? If that were to happen, we could avoid problems such as those at Bow roundabout and Vauxhall Cross, which have had to be put right later at enormous cost.

Stephen Hammond: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is a keen cyclist and vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cycling—

Ian Austin: Co-chair.

Stephen Hammond: I am sorry—co-chairman of the group. I look forward to seeing its report, which I am sure will cover a number of those issues. He will be aware that we have committed a local sustainable transport fund of £650 million, and a number of the schemes being developed under that have exactly the cycling element that he is asking for.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the Secretary of State’s recent announcement on the improvement of the A160 into Immingham docks. The next part of the network that needs improving to provide access to the Humber bank ports and industrial areas is the A15 between Lincoln and Scunthorpe, which is in urgent need of dualling. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet a delegation of Members from the appropriate constituencies to discuss the matter?

Stephen Hammond: I would be delighted to accept my hon. Friend’s request. I have been meeting a number of Members and groups from their constituencies to
	discuss the possibility of their qualifying for route-based strategies, and I look forward to talking to him about this matter.

Rail Electrification (Wales)

Kevin Brennan: What recent assessment he has made of the potential benefits of electrification of railway lines into Wales.

Simon Burns: The Welsh valley lines to Cardiff and the Great Western main line from London to Cardiff, Bridgend and Swansea will be electrified. Electrification will deliver trains that are cleaner, quieter, faster, and cheaper to operate, with more capacity for passengers. It will help to create jobs and boost growth across south Wales.

Kevin Brennan: The Government were right not to scrap the last Labour Government’s plans for electrification. What work is the Minister doing now, in conjunction with the Welsh Government, to ensure that the Welsh economy gains the maximum economic benefit from this investment?

Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his rewriting of history and on his seeking to take the credit for what this Government have done in deciding to increase electrification. I can tell him that we are in close contact with the Welsh Government, because we are determined to help stimulate the regeneration of the Welsh valleys and the connectivity between London, Cardiff, Bridgend and Swansea. That is why we are investing this money to improve the communications. We will ensure that the deadlines laid down for this to come into operation will be met.

West Coast Main Line Franchise

Stephen Mosley: What recent progress his Department has made on securing an operator for the west coast main line franchise.

Patrick McLoughlin: Since the cancellation of the west coast competition, the Department has negotiated an agreement for Virgin Trains to continue running the service for up to 23 months until November 2014. This will be followed by a long-term contract.

Stephen Mosley: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear from a regular west coast main line user that, so far, the interim service seems to be of high reliability and quality. During the original bidding process, both Virgin and First Group promised substantial longer-term improvements to the west coast main line service. Will the Secretary of State encourage future bidders to be similarly ambitious?

Patrick McLoughlin: I assure my hon. Friend that I am grateful for his update on the service he is receiving and pleased to hear about the satisfaction he and his constituents
	are getting from it. We are always looking for improvements. I hope that when we come to negotiate the next longer-term contracts, a number of improvements will be included in them, but I also hope to see some improvement on this particular line before 2014.

Bill Esterson: What lessons will the Secretary of State apply to the west coast franchise from the experience of the not-for-profit east coast main line, not least in respect of the return of a £190 million dividend to taxpayers?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am always looking to learn lessons from everything that happens on the railways. I believe that the private sector has brought tremendous growth of passenger numbers and improvements in services on the railways. Like the last Government, I am committed to seeing the east coast main line offered to franchise as well.

Road-building Projects

Eric Ollerenshaw: What steps he is taking to accelerate major road-building projects.

Stephen Hammond: The Highways Agency is undertaking pilot schemes to demonstrate how four major road schemes can be delivered more quickly. So far, these have been accelerated by 18 and 21 months. We have achieved this by making widespread changes to the planning, design and construction regime.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand that the planning inspectorate’s report on the possible M6 link road to Heysham port around Lancaster may be on the Minister’s desk. Given that the plans for that were first sketched out in 1948, could somebody speed things up a little bit, as this will be a vital route for Lancaster, the north-west and indeed Northern Ireland?

Stephen Hammond: We received the examining authority’s report and recommendation on the scheme from the planning inspectorate on 19 December. The report is being considered carefully. We are obliged under the Planning Act 2008 to decide whether to grant a development consent for the scheme by 19 March 2013. I am looking to see whether we can accelerate that even faster.

Clive Efford: When the Minister next meets the Mayor of London, I urge him to discuss the Silvertown link between North Greenwich and Silvertown on the north side of the river. More importantly, many people are concerned about the need for public transport links along that stretch of the river, so will the Minister discuss with the Mayor the need to introduce a link for the Docklands Light Railway to come to North Greenwich, as it is essential for that to be part of the river crossing.

Stephen Hammond: I regularly meet both the Mayor of London and the commissioner of transport for London. I will make sure that that subject is on the agenda the next time we meet.

Paul Maynard: In 1948, the very same county plan for Lancashire—under a Labour Government, I duly note—recommended a new A585 trunk road to improve links to both Fleetwood and the northern parts of my constituency. This remains a key local priority, but what guidance has the Department issued to the local enterprise partnerships to ensure that when decisions about regional structural priorities are taken, they are evidence based rather than based on economic fashion?

Stephen Hammond: We have encouraged local enterprise partnerships to involve themselves with other local groups in order to ensure that suggestions, plans and designs for new routes take economic potential into account. Many LEPS throughout the country have taken that on board, and I trust that the one in Lancashire will do the same.

Russell Brown: In his reply to the question from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), the Minister referred to the autumn statement of 2011. Will he now tell us how many of the schemes that were announced at that time have so much as seen a spade in the ground? In how many instances has construction actually begun?

Stephen Hammond: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 90% of the projects announced in the 2011 autumn statement are under way, and that 13 have been completed.

London Midland

Michael Fabricant: What assessment he has made of the level of service provided by London Midland trains in the last six months; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Baker: The Department is continually assessing London Midland’s performance, and holds monthly review meetings with its senior management. As the Secretary of State announced on 20 December 2012, London Midland’s performance between September and December breached its contractual benchmark. The Department has therefore negotiated measures with London Midland to ensure that a reliable passenger service is restored, as well as a £7 million package of benefits for passengers.

Michael Fabricant: If there have been improvements, most of my constituents have not really noticed them. They have been stranded at Four Oaks—and believe me, Mr. Speaker, you would not want to be stranded at Four Oaks—hanging around for an hour and a half waiting for another London Midland train to take them back to Lichfield. How bad does it actually have to get before the Minister decides to take away the service and readvertise the contract?

Norman Baker: I shall try not to be stuck at Four Oaks, where there is evidently a problem that limits the ability to run through trains. However, we are continuing to monitor London Midland’s performance, and if it breaches further benchmarks, we will take further action. I can say now that it is expected to make losses for the
	remainder of its franchise period, and that, in my view, given that it created this mess, it is up to London Midland to sort it out on behalf of the taxpayer.

Mark Lazarowicz: rose—

Mr Speaker: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his question should relate purely to the subject of London Midland trains? [Laughter.]

Mark Lazarowicz: If passengers are delayed on London Midland, and indeed on other lines—[Laughter]—they are entitled to compensation. However, when London Midland provides such compensation, it takes the form of paper vouchers, which, as a constituent of mine has pointed out, cannot be exchanged online. That is inconvenient, and it means that they cannot obtain the full benefit of lower fares. Will the Minister look into that when the Government review the fares system?

Norman Baker: I am happy to say that that point has been raised by a number of Members, and that we are looking into it. People should not be discriminated against on the basis of the method that they use to buy their tickets.

Railways: Private Sector

Peter Aldous: What assessment his Department has made of the role of the private sector in the UK's railways.

Stephen Hammond: Since privatisation, the number of passenger miles travelled has nearly doubled. Rail freight has increased by over 60%, the level of passenger satisfaction has risen by 10% in the last decade, and the level of punctuality has risen by nearly 14 %.

Peter Aldous: The delay in tendering for new longer rail franchises is holding back much-needed private sector investment in trains in East Anglia. Will the Government consider the proposals that have been drawn up to fast-track the provision of those urgently required new and upgraded trains?

Stephen Hammond: The Government commissioned Lord Brown to advise on the future of franchising. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, his report has now been published, and the Government are looking at it. I understand that proposals have indeed been drawn up, and the Government will happily consider those proposals. I suggest that my hon. Friend should try to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the eastern rail summit, which will be held in the spring.

Ian Lucas: Do not the failures of the east coast and, now, the west coast franchise demonstrate that the policy of reusing a bad system is a bad one? Will the Minister please consider alternative models such as the mutualisation adopted by Welsh Water, which has led to increased private investment, efficient services, and reasonable charges for customers?

Stephen Hammond: Throughout the country, privatisation and the franchising model have brought huge benefits to the system and to the rail traveller, and, as I said earlier, the level of passenger satisfaction has risen by more than 10% in the last decade.

John Leech: The best way of assessing private sector rail franchises is to have a public sector comparator. Does the Minister therefore agree that we should consider retaining the east coast franchise as a public sector comparator, and look at having a local and regional service as a public sector comparator, too?

Stephen Hammond: I disagree with that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman will remember that although subsidy was slightly lower when we had nationalised railways, underinvestment was a major feature of that era. Fares continued to rise and passenger satisfaction declined.

Bus Fares

Tom Blenkinsop: What assessment he has made of bus fare rises in non-metropolitan areas; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Baker: The Government recognises that the price of public transport is an issue for many people, including those in non-metropolitan areas, and we are putting measures in place to keep down the cost of using the bus, including retaining the bus service operators grant and the concessionary travel entitlement, and encouraging more reasonably priced multi-operator tickets.

Tom Blenkinsop: Following cuts imposed by this Government, Mayor Mallon in Middlesbrough is proposing to axe the teen mover scheme that helps young people afford public transport, and Redcar and Cleveland borough council has already had to scale back its similar scheme. As a result, coupled with bus fare increases, young people risk being plunged into transport poverty. Will the Minister hold discussions with his colleagues at the Departments for Education and for Communities and Local Government to ensure that young people in Middlesbrough and east Cleveland can afford to travel by public transport?

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the issue of young people and buses, and I have given considerable attention to it. I have had discussions with the industry, and there is a new website giving young people more information about bus fares and the best offers in their area. We are discussing what further steps we might take to help young people, and, indeed, I have met colleagues at the Department for Education to discuss this very issue.

Anne McIntosh: Does my hon. Friend agree that community transport and concessionary fares are particularly important in rural areas? Will he therefore consider a further roll-out of the wheels to work scheme in rural areas such as Thirsk, Malton and Filey?

Norman Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I agree with her point. We have given two tranches of £10 million to aid community transport across England. We have also funded wheels to work schemes under the local sustainable transport fund, and will continue to do so.

Yvonne Fovargue: The Government’s own figures show bus fares rising by double the rate of inflation, and many passengers face even higher increases; the Arriva Midlands annual saver ticket has increased by 20% this year. When will the Minister accept that his Government’s decision to cut local transport funding by 28% and to cut direct support for bus services by a fifth has increased the financial pressure on households who are already struggling to make ends meet?

Norman Baker: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Front Bench. She may not be aware that this is not a new phenomenon. In 2009, the retail prices index fell by 0.4% and bus fares increased by 8.6%—far more than they have risen this year. Steps are being taken to cut bus fares, and the hon. Lady may be interested to know that fares are being cut by First Bus in both Sheffield and Manchester.

Topical Questions

Gareth Thomas: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McLoughlin: May I take this opportunity to thank the emergency services who responded so professionally to yesterday’s helicopter crash in London, in which, sadly, two people lost their lives? The Air Accidents Investigation Branch is continuing its investigation, and I will keep the House updated on its findings.
	Since I last addressed the House at Transport questions, I have published the Richard Brown independent review into franchising, which concluded that it remains a fundamentally sound model. I will make further statements on rail franchising in due course. Over the Christmas period I also announced details of a new £170 million local authority pinch point fund, targeting the most congested points on local roads, as well as the allocation of an extra £215 million to councils to maintain roads.

Gareth Thomas: The cost of travelling by train and tube from the suburbs of London into central London—for example, from West Harrow in my constituency to Westminster—has increased by 25% in the last two years alone. What discussions do Ministers plan to have with the Mayor of London about ameliorating the impact of high fare rises on those whose budgets are already squeezed?

Patrick McLoughlin: The current fare regime and price increases are exactly the same as those under the last Government, and I do not remember him complaining about them then.

David Mowat: The new Mersey Gateway bridge will be tolled, with the risk of significant extra traffic through Warrington. The inspector at the planning inquiry stated the toll
	should be set no higher than that of the nearby Birkenhead tunnel. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in any evaluation of a change to the tunnel toll, he will also look at the situation of the bridge and of Warrington?

Stephen Hammond: The Government have no plans to fund the reduction or abolition of tolls on the Mersey tunnels. Tolls on the new Mersey gateway bridge will be set by the Mersey gateway crossings board, an independent subsidiary of Halton borough council set up to manage the scheme. My hon. Friend knows that the indicative and maximum toll levels were agreed as part of the public inquiry, and were set out under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

Anne McGuire: A couple of days ago, Carlos Tevez, the Manchester City striker, admitted to not having a valid UK driving licence. It was said that the theory test would be difficult for him as it is conducted in English. Given that many people who are legitimately and legally in the UK need to drive after the 12-month grace period, does the Department offer the theory test in other languages? If not, why not, given that in the interests of road safety it is more important that people are encouraged to take the test, rather than have them worry about whether their written English skills are up to scratch?

Stephen Hammond: I can confirm that the test is offered in more languages in this country than it is in any other in Europe. I am, however, consulting on whether to reduce the number, because it is clear that a key aspect of road safety is involved: if people cannot understand the test in English, they might not be able to understand the road signs.

Priti Patel: Will my right hon. Friend continue to champion Essex commuters and ensure that the recommendations of “Once in a generation—A rail prospectus for East Anglia” are considered by his Department and implemented, so that our commuters can have outstanding rail infrastructure, bringing us into the 21st century?

Simon Burns: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I pay tribute to the tremendous work that she, other hon. Members and local authorities in East Anglia have done in producing that excellent document, in which I was involved before becoming a Minister. She can have my assurance that we are completely committed to investing in infrastructure, not only in East Anglia and Essex but throughout the country. I look forward to meeting her, Government Members and other Members of the House to discuss that important report shortly.

John Mann: Bolsover district council, Chesterfield borough council, North East Derbyshire district council and Bassetlaw district council have all proposed that devolved major scheme funding should be allocated to a local transport body based on the Sheffield city region. Does the Minister agree that that is a sensible way to allocate resources in order to help regenerate the economy?

Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, although it is obviously equally important to listen to local views. My understanding is that both Derby and Derbyshire, and Nottingham and Nottinghamshire did not think it was right that they be linked with Sheffield because of different considerations in their geographical make-up and in their needs. We have decided that, in the interim, we will not link Sheffield with Derby/Derbyshire and Nottingham/Nottinghamshire, but we will leave it to the local communities to seek, in the short term, an agreement that will be mutually acceptable to all communities.

Chris Heaton-Harris: My question is further to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about services on London Midland trains. Staff shortages and other issues have led to an unbelievably poor service, with London Midland’s chief executive saying earlier this week that he was “embarrassed” by the service being offered. What will the Government do to ensure that London Midland improves the service it offers my constituents?

Norman Baker: As I mentioned earlier, there have been discussions between the Department and London Midland, and they are ongoing. London Midland has taken steps to improve its rostering and to recruit more drivers to try to ensure that the very poor service that my hon. Friend’s constituents have had is not repeated this year. We continue to monitor the situation, and we will take further action if necessary.

Kelvin Hopkins: If Britain is to see a substantial modal shift of freight from road to rail, it is vital to construct dedicated rail freight capacity capable of carrying full-sized lorry trailers on trains. Will the Government give serious consideration to practical schemes to provide such capacity?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will always look at practical schemes that come forward. I am pleased to say that the amount of freight being carried on the railways has dramatically increased, and I very much hope that our plans in the near future will show that we want it to increase even further.

Charles Kennedy: The Minister is aware of my concern about the apparent reinterpretation by the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland of the very welcome £50 million that the UK Government announced in their 2011 autumn statement for sleeper refurbishment. Will the Minister comment on his understanding of the position, and could we perhaps discuss it later in a meeting, not least in the context of the new Caledonian sleeper franchise?

Simon Burns: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question, and I know he has campaigned vigorously for improvements to that rail service. I understand that the Scottish Government decided to reroute funding allocated for improving sleeper services to capital investment in Scottish Water—a short-term measure taken, apparently, for accounting reasons. The future funding of Scottish Water will be fully adjusted to ensure the commitment to fund the sleeper improvement programme is met,
	although I think it is sad that there has been this delay. I would be more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman if he felt that would be useful.

Graham Jones: My constituent, Mrs Hinet, suffered the tragedy of losing her daughter and grandchild. They were pedestrians who died when a car driven by an 89-year-old who had had a heart attack at the wheel mounted the pavement. There seems to be a lack of assessment of drivers such as that 89-year-old, compared with that of those who are 70. I know that regulations are in place for drivers who are over 70, but there seems to be a problem in that the deciles of the 70s and 80s are aggregated in the data. Will the Minister look at the data and how they are collected for those in their 70s and 80s and accidents on the roads?

Stephen Hammond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. We have looked at that data and at some of the evidence from some incidents, particularly a number of tragic incidents such as the one he describes. The most important thing is that the current plans and regime are backed by the evidence, and I will review that. More importantly, it is a question of experience and not necessarily of the driver’s age.

Cheryl Gillan: To what extent does the Secretary of State plan to rely on private sector money to fund HS2? Have the Government approached or received any expressions of interest from potential funders, including any foreign sovereign wealth funds?

Patrick McLoughlin: First and foremost, I want to get the Bill for HS2 through the House. We will make further announcements on HS2 in the near future.

Linda Riordan: Will the Secretary of State outline when the Caldervale line that runs through my constituency will get new rolling stock to replace the current Pacer units, which are unpopular, uncomfortable and outdated?

Patrick McLoughlin: I promise the hon. Lady that I will write to her, bearing in mind the concerns she has just expressed.

Tim Farron: Electrification of the Lakes line from Oxenholme to Windermere would probably be the least expensive and most straightforward electrification project in the network. It would also provide a massive boost for the £3 billion tourism economy in Cumbria. Will the Minister meet me, rail operators and rail users to take forward this project?

Norman Baker: I am very happy for me or my colleague the Minister of State to meet my hon. Friend about this matter. We have a major programme of electrification, as he knows. It will not be finished when we have completed all these schemes, so we are looking forward to further schemes post the present programme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Houses of Parliament

Thomas Docherty: What progress the Commission expects to make in the remainder of this Session on the renovation and renewal of the Houses of Parliament.

John Thurso: At its October 2012 meeting, the Commission agreed to publish the report of the previous feasibility group and ask for a full independent analysis to be carried out of the various high-level options other than the option of a new building away from Westminster. The House Committee of the House of Lords reached a similar view. The results will be available in 2014 and will provide the basis for an informed decision about how exactly to proceed.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful for that answer. Given the need for an informed decision, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that all stakeholders—the public, the press, those who work here and, of course, Members of both Houses—are fully engaged in the process leading up to that decision?

John Thurso: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point and the Commission is grateful to him for the part he played in advising the study group last year, together with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) and two Members of the House of Lords. This will be a major project that will affect us all, and good consultation with all those involved will be vital to ensuring its success. I look forward, as I am sure the Commission does, to working with the hon. Gentleman and others to ensure that that happens.

Philip Hollobone: If the cheapest and quickest option for a complete renewal of the fabric of the Houses of Parliament is to close the Houses of Parliament and temporarily relocate them elsewhere, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that that option is put before the House so that Members can vote for or against it?

John Thurso: The purpose of the feasibility study now being undertaken is to ensure that there is accurate information, properly gathered by outside independent experts, so that all the options are based on fact, without any optimism bias. I cannot personally imagine a circumstance in which the House would not wish to express a view on what is best, but when the decision is made, after the information is available, it will be for the usual channels, whichever they are, to work out how to do that.

Chris Bryant: If we were to move out, which I would not particularly object to if it were more cost effective, and if, for instance, we were to move to a round chamber, such as that at Church house, where would the Liberal Democrats sit? Would they sit
	between Labour and the Conservatives? Would they sit to the far left or to the far right, or would they sit in the bishops’ seats?

John Thurso: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. That is beyond my pay grade in this role, but I assure him that wherever it was it would always be the right place.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

McKay Report

Harriett Baldwin: When he expects to receive a report from the Commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons.

Tom Brake: A report from the McKay commission is expected by the end of the current Session of Parliament.

Harriett Baldwin: I am delighted to hear that we will get the report in this Session of Parliament. Does the Deputy Leader of the House share my aspiration that by the end of this Parliament we will ensure that English-only legislation is voted on with a majority of English MPs?

Tom Brake: I am aware that my hon. Friend is pursuing this matter vigorously—indeed, she made her own submission—but it is right that we wait until we have carefully considered the arguments and options in the report before taking a view. I am sure the House will want to do the same.

Nigel Dodds: Before we make any further changes, the House will know that we already have two classes of Members of Parliament—those who take their seats and are properly accountable in parliamentary terms for their expenses, and those who do not take their seats and can spend representative money on party political campaigning, with no accountability. When will the Government address that issue?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is slightly outside the scope of the McKay commission, but he has put his concerns on the record again. I am sure it is a matter that the House will wish to consider in the future.

David Hanson: Following the question from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that Members of Parliament such as me, who represent constituencies in Wales but have constituents who work in England, receive health services in England and use transport in England, also have an opportunity to vote on those matters as Members of Parliament?

Tom Brake: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is appropriate, as I said earlier, that we should wait until the report has been published. Clearly,
	a wide range of options is available, such as the status quo, federalism and many different approaches that many Members would want to advocate.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

House of Commons Dining Rooms

Christopher Chope: What use the Commission is making of price mechanisms to ensure maximum utilisation of House of Commons dining rooms on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings.

John Thurso: The recently endorsed Catering Services business improvement plan proposes the return of a variable tariff structure in the Members Dining Room. The Administration Committee will be consulted on the details shortly. This is in response to feedback from Members who had stopped using that service following the introduction of a fixed tariff. Catering Services has a three-month rolling marketing plan that highlights offers and promotions in all the catering outlets to generate more business. This plan will include the Dining Room.

Christopher Chope: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Last week, I dined on all three nights in the Dining Room and almost nobody else was present, but the service was fantastic because there were three servants for each person sitting down. [Hon. Members: “Servants?”] Exactly. Does my hon. Friend think that one way of engaging Members who do not use the Dining Room would be to offer them much cheaper rates when there is an opportunity for them to come along?

John Thurso: There is clearly a balance to be struck between attracting people in at the right price and prices being so low that they do not recover the appropriate cost. The House authorities strive to strike that balance appropriately. Work is being undertaken, particularly by the Administration Committee, but the key, driving factor is that the footfall in the Palace is dropping because of the change in hours, and I do not think any of us can do a great deal about that.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Programming

Ann McKechin: Whether he plans to give evidence to the Procedure Committee inquiry on programming.

Tom Brake: We have received confirmation of the Procedure Committee’s decision to undertake an inquiry into programming together with a request to set out the Government’s views. We will submit our views shortly.

Ann McKechin: Given how light the Government’s legislative programme is, does the right hon. Gentleman think that now is the time to consider whether we can debate private Members’ Bills not only on Fridays but on other days of the week, rather than having the countless pointless debates that we currently have to endure?

Tom Brake: I am surprised that the hon. Lady considers that the Government have a light programme; that is certainly not the view on the Government Benches. The House has expressed a view on private Members’ Bills. It has thought it appropriate to leave them where they are.

Angela Smith: When the Leader of the House and his deputy prepare their evidence, will they consider holding the Committee stage of the Bill on equal marriage on the Floor of the House?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for that question about a matter that has been raised before. The Government want to allow suitable scrutiny of the Bill and I am sure that the Government will provide it.

Public Reading Stages

Sarah Newton: What assessment he has made of the pilots of public reading stages for Bills.

Andrew Lansley: We have conducted pilot public reading stages for the Protection of Freedoms Bill and the Small Charitable Donations Bill, and an online consultation was conducted on the draft Care and Support Bill.
	Following evaluation, I have today informed the House in a written ministerial statement that public reading stages will form part of a tool kit to consider legislation on a case-by-case basis. I hope we will continue to improve public engagement in the legislative process—for example, through pre-legislative scrutiny and evidence sessions in Public Bill Committees rather than by adopting a uniform approach to legislation.

Sarah Newton: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s response and congratulate him and his predecessor on the great innovations in this Parliament to make this place more relevant to the people who sent us here. I urge that we use the new tool in our tool kit as often as we can.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I share an appreciation of my predecessor. Over the past two and a half years, the House has made considerable progress in engaging the public directly with legislation. We can do that through a number of routes. Sometimes, pre-legislative scrutiny on draft legislation or evidence sessions before Public Bill Committees are very effective, and public reading stages are a further option. We do not want to specify in relation to any particular legislation that all those things must be applied, but we have the mechanisms to engage the public more fully.

Private Members’ Bills

Charlie Elphicke: What recent consideration he has given to the procedure for private Members’ Bills; and if he will make a statement.

Tom Brake: Hon. Members will be aware that the Procedure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the procedure for private Members’ Bills. My hon. Friend gave evidence to the Committee yesterday and raised a number of issues relating to the timing procedures and motivation for private Members’ Bills. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give evidence on behalf of the Government in due course.

Charlie Elphicke: As a tool for prompting dialogue and discussion or for the furtherance of a parliamentary campaign, private Members’ Bills are really useful, but many Members think that the way in which Friday sittings work is little short of a farce. Should programming and the tools used for Government legislation be applied to private Members’ legislation, to enable votes to take place and more legislation to be passed?

Tom Brake: Many Members have experienced some frustrations regarding the private Members’ Bill process. I know that the hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion to the Procedure Committee along the lines of his question, but he will be aware that existing procedures of the House allow for a closure to be sought on debates and to impose time limits on speeches. He will be aware that sometimes when a Member presents a private Member’s Bill there will be other ways of ensuring that it is reflected in Government legislation, in the way that his proposed measures on children and families will be reflected in that Bill.

Government Bills (Report Stage)

Simon Hughes: Whether he has considered guaranteeing a minimum amount of time for the consideration of Government Bills at Report stage.

Tom Brake: This Government recognise the value of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. We have provided more days than the previous Administration for Report stages and, where necessary, we will provide more than one day for Report stage.

Simon Hughes: I recognise the Government’s commitment to better scrutiny of legislation, but one of the perennial frustrations, under all Governments, is that we get to Report stage and the allocated time is used up by urgent questions or statements and we end up with almost no time to do the job of the House. Will Ministers look at changing that so that we have injury time for any time lost because of earlier business?

Tom Brake: I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. The Government have sought to address his concerns by providing more time on Report, but he
	might want to consider making a submission to the Procedure Committee, which is looking at programming. I am sure that the Government will want to consider his submission, along with others, when the report is published.

Sitting Hours

Kevin Brennan: What assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of new sitting hours on managing the business of the House.

Tom Brake: No assessment has been made of the effect of the new sitting hours on managing the business of the House.

Kevin Brennan: I think the Deputy Leader of the House should make an assessment but should not listen to those who are calling for private Members’ Bills to brought into the middle of the week. Would it not be a ludicrous outcome if those who argued for our hours to move to earlier in the evening were then to vote for private Members’ Bills to be discussed after 7 o’clock so that the hours were extended from 11.30 am to 10 pm instead of running from 2.30 pm to 10 pm, which is what applied before?

Tom Brake: Clearly, the House has made a decision in relation to sitting hours, but the Procedure Committee is looking at the matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns will be taken on board as part of that process.

Policy Announcements

Diana Johnson: What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the requirements of the ministerial code relating to making policy announcements to the House before the media.

Andrew Lansley: The ministerial code is clear:
	“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
	I regularly remind my colleagues of this.

Diana Johnson: We know from the Government’s relaunch that they are planning to make 12 policy announcements over the next 12 weeks. Will the Leader of the House assure us that those announcements will be made first to the House of Commons, and that there will penalties if that does not happen?

Andrew Lansley: I reiterate to the House and to the hon. Lady that the ministerial code is clear and that I regularly remind my colleagues of it. It is our intention and our practice that the most important announcements of Government policy be made in the first instance to Parliament. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is saying from a sedentary position that I am inaccurate. I have quoted directly the ministerial code to him and to the House.

Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)

Mary Creagh: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if he will give a response to the finding of horsemeat in supermarket meat products.

David Heath: This is a very important and extremely serious issue. Consumers should have full confidence that food is exactly what it says on the label. There are strict rules requiring products to be labelled accurately.
	The Food Standards Agency is urgently investigating how a number of beef products on sale in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland were found to contain horse and pig meat. Twenty-seven beefburger products were analysed, with 10 of the 27 products, or 37%, testing positive for horse DNA and 23, or 85%, testing positive for pig DNA. In nine of the 10 beefburger samples, horse DNA was found at very low levels. In one sample from Tesco, the level of horse DNA indicated that horsemeat was present and accounted for approximately 29% of the total meat content of the burger.
	Yesterday the agency met representatives from the food industry from all parts of the UK. Industry representatives confirmed the existing processes that they follow to ensure that the products that reach consumers are of the highest standard. These include quality controls in place at all stages of the food chain. They also set out the actions that they have already taken in response to this incident.
	The FSA has now set out a four-point plan for its investigation, which it will implement in conjunction with Government Departments, local authorities and the food industry. The first point is to continue the urgent review of the traceability of the food products identified in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland survey. The retailers and the UK processor named in the survey have been asked to provide comprehensive information on the findings by the end of Friday 18 January.
	The second point is to explore further, in conjunction with the FSAI, the methodology used for the survey, to understand more clearly the factors that may have led to the low-level cases of cross-contamination. The third is to consider, with relevant local authorities and the FSAI, whether any legal action will be appropriate following the investigation. The fourth is to work with my Department, the devolved rural affairs Departments and local authorities on a UK-wide study of food authenticity in processed meat products.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Minister for that reply, but perhaps he could have made a statement to the House yesterday, rather than have to respond to an urgent question today.
	There is understandable public anger that supermarkets have been selling beefburgers and other products containing horsemeat and pig DNA. Consumers who avoid pork for religious reasons will be upset that they may have unwittingly eaten it, and eating horse is a strong cultural taboo in the United Kingdom. It is not illegal to sell horsemeat, but it is illegal not to label it correctly. Customers must have the confidence that the food they buy is correctly labelled, legal and safe.
	The UK is part of a global food supply chain. The food industry lobbies vigorously for a light-touch regulatory system from Government. Testing, tracking and tracing ingredients is expensive, but not testing them will cost retailers, processors, British farmers and consumers much more.
	This is not just about the supermarkets. The adulteration scandal raises serious questions for the Government to answer about how we as a nation regulate our food. First, the adulteration was detected in Ireland, not the United Kingdom. Why was it not picked up here? Will the Minister consider introducing DNA testing of meat, as happens in Ireland, to reassure consumers that they are actually getting what they pay for?
	In 2010, the Minister’s Government split the responsibility for food labelling between three Government Departments: the Department of Health is responsible for dietary and nutritional labelling, and the Food Standards Agency is responsible for allergen labelling, but the 25 staff and the budget responsible for the compositional labelling has been transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Is that not an absurd situation, and will the Minister now review the system that he has created for food labelling in this country? How many of those 25 staff are still employed by DEFRA on those issues, and why was no national system put in place at that time to audit labelling and composition to protect consumers from this type of fraud?
	The FSA inquiry will test the robustness of supermarket audit chains. How confident is the Minister that they will meet Government standards? Has the loss of 700 trading standards officers in three years made this type of consumer fraud more widespread and less likely to be detected? Is the Minister confident that the FSA’s Meat Hygiene Service can be cut by £12 million over the comprehensive spending review period without its ability to detect breaches of the law or tackle a disease outbreak being affected? These invisible regulatory services protect our consumers and our food industry and allow the industry to export all over the world.
	Horses are killed for meat in this country, but there are dozens of different types of horse passport and the system is a mess. Will the Minister look at the system for horse passports?
	The coalition agreement stated:
	“We will introduce honesty in food labelling so that consumers can be confident about where their food comes from and its environmental impact.”
	On the evidence of the past few days, the Minister still has quite a way to go.

David Heath: Let us be clear: the hon. Lady is right to say that consumers have a right to expect that the food they eat is what it says on the label. The cases that were picked up in Ireland are a serious breach of that principle. That is why we are taking the measures that we are taking.
	The hon. Lady was completely wrong, however, in what she said about responsibility for labelling. Let us be absolutely clear: the responsibility for policy on labelling lies with the most appropriate Department, but the responsibility for checking the content of food lies with the Food Standards Agency—which, of course, is the responsibility of the Department of Health—and only the Food Standards Agency. It is the body charged with that responsibility.

Barry Gardiner: Where are the Health Ministers?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the difference between a policy responsibility and implementation. It is precisely because of that difference that we split it—to make sure that implementation was with the body charged with that duty.
	I believe that the Food Standards Agency carries out its duties in a responsible and professional way. It takes a risk-based approach to testing, based on intelligence. It is right to do so, because that is how it gets the most effective results.
	The hon. Lady asked about trading standards officers. Of course these officers have a duty to their local authorities and to the people in their area in relation to the standards that traders employ in that area, but they are not a responsibility of central Government. Local government will take the decisions on what are the appropriate levels.
	The hon. Lady seems to think that there is some difficulty with horse passports. I simply do not think that that is the case. I would happily set out the difference between the route for horses going to slaughter and the routes for others.
	May I make one final point that is absolutely essential? It is important that neither the hon. Lady nor anyone else in this House talks down the British food industry at a time when the standards in that industry are very high. That something has been discovered in Ireland that is serious and may lead to criminal proceedings does not undermine the serious efforts that are taken by retailers, processors and producers in this country to ensure traceability and the standard of the food that is available to consumers. She should not put that at risk by making unguarded comments.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Notwithstanding the importance and urgency of this matter, I remind the House that business questions are to follow and that we then have two heavily subscribed debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. I will not be able to call everybody as I usually wish to do, but to maximise the number of contributors, I appeal to colleagues for single, short supplementary questions and to the Minister for appropriately pithy replies.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister has to answer the question why this problem was picked up not in this country but in Ireland. Will he take this opportunity to explain what the role of DEFRA is in food safety and where the cross-contamination occurred? I understood that all checks on imported meat, in which we understand the cross-contamination was found, occur at the point of entry. Will he confirm what checks are conducted on meat imports?

David Heath: Let me make it very clear, as I have already said, that food safety is the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. I have no reason to suppose that it does not do an extremely good job. We have a robust screening process with a network of food safety organisations. I see nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that we collaborate successfully with food standards
	agencies in other countries, because this is a European trade. The meat in question almost certainly came not from the UK but from a third country, to be processed in Ireland. It is not surprising, therefore, that the UK authorities would not have picked that up. However, we are investigating fully and there may well be criminal prosecutions as a consequence.

Ben Bradshaw: I have to tell the Minister that he is striking a very ill-judged tone. Where is the Secretary of State? Will these retailers be prosecuted? Was it not total folly to remove any responsibility for food safety or standards from the independent Food Standards Agency to his Department?

David Heath: I have already explained that we have not done that. It is the policy on food labelling, which is considered at Agriculture Council, that is within DEFRA. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman’s other comments require a reply.

Roger Williams: At a time when commodity prices are very high, food adulteration is likely to become a bigger problem. When we have high-priced beef and—as I understand it—low-priced horsemeat, some unscrupulous food processors are likely to take advantage. Will the Minister therefore ensure that when commodity prices are high throughout the food chain, the Food Standards Agency has responsible processes in place to ensure that adulteration cannot happen in this country, and that British food maintains its high status?

David Heath: We certainly need to do that—that is one of the things that is in train. I have said that the FSA operates on the basis of intelligence—it will continue to do so, because it is important that we find where adulteration takes place. However, it is important to say that manufacturers and retailers have a responsibility to establish very clearly the provenance of the food they supply. Most retailers and processers in this country do an extremely good job of exactly that, but when the system falls down, we must investigate and take appropriate action.

Barry Gardiner: People trust brands such as Tesco to have precisely sourced their supply. The Minister rightly said that it is not illegal to sell horsemeat in this country, but he also rightly said that it is illegal to sell horsemeat if it is not properly labelled as such. What steps have been taken to prosecute Tesco and others for their failure to label properly the food they were supplying to their customers?

Ben Bradshaw: Answer the question this time.

David Heath: I am so grateful to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for his advice.
	The investigations will precede the prosecution process. That is the way we do things in this country. We investigate first and take prosecutions to court if it is appropriate to do so. I do not think—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I understand the strength of feeling on the matter and the considerable expertise of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), but I would look to him ordinarily to behave in a
	statesman-like manner, and he fell short of the standard on that occasion. He must calm himself. Let us hear the answer.

David Heath: As I was saying, if prosecutions are required, they will of course take place, either in this country or in the Republic of Ireland as appropriate. However, it is important to gather evidence before mounting a prosecution.

Sarah Newton: Although I welcome the fact that Tesco has today widely advertised an apology, does the Minister share my disgust on hearing the news yesterday that such a profitable and large British organisation could have let down consumers so very badly? Should not Tesco go way beyond that advert to rebuild trust with its customers and prove to us what it will do about this situation?

David Heath: The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. I am impressed at the speed with which Tesco has responded to what is clearly both a very embarrassing situation and a potentially damaging one. It is essential that retailers and processors rebuild trust in the products available in this country, and that the Government do whatever we can to support that. Only on that basis can we have a successful trade.

Jonathan Reynolds: Food manufacturing is an important part of the British economy and employs a lot of people in my constituency. The shadow Secretary of State is not undermining the industry by bringing those issues to the House; she is safeguarding its future by allowing people to have confidence in it. The Minister needs to tone down the rhetoric, tell us that you are on top of this issue, and let the British public know that they can have confidence in the regulatory system for which you are responsible.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for these matters, but we look forward to hearing the Minister.

David Heath: I have set out exactly what the FSA is doing in response to the immediate problem. The point I am trying to make is this: yes, this is probably an example of criminality—we must wait and see—but it has been detected and is being dealt with. It is quite wrong to extrapolate from that and say, “This is common across the whole of the food industry.” That would be a mistake, and it would undermine an important industry.

Tony Baldry: There are a finite number of abattoirs, slaughter houses and renderers both here and in the Republic of Ireland, so must it not be possible, in fairly short order, to discover where the horsemeat entered the food chain and react accordingly?

David Heath: Of course, the first responsibility for that lies with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which is carrying out investigations and we are assisting with them as far as possible. I think we will quickly identify where the meat came from and discover whether it was falsely labelled at the point of origin, which I suspect may be the case.

Joan Walley: Is not the problem fragmentation, split responsibility, enforcement, the role of trading standards officers and cuts to local government? Has the Minister had a meeting a Cabinet level, across all Departments, to get a policy that is fit for purpose?

David Heath: As I have already said, I do not accept that there is any difficulty with split responsibilities. The responsibility for food safety lies entirely with the Food Standards Agency.

Neil Parish: In this country, there are robust rules to separate the processing of beef and horse meat. Is that not the case in Ireland?

David Heath: That will be the subject of the investigations being carried out. The low-level contamination suggests that it may not have been through deliberate falsification of labelling. It may well be that it is simply cross-contamination by error, but I am sure that the Irish authorities will look carefully at this. We are co-operating with them as far as we can, and we are very eager to know the answer.

Dave Watts: The Minister said, “It’s not my fault” and puts the blame back on the Food Standards Agency. He has already made cuts and is proposing £11 million more. Will he stop those cuts in order to protect the vulnerable people in Britain from having food they should not have?

David Heath: I know that it is a convenient fiction, but I can honestly say that I am not personally responsible for having mislabelled horsemeat in the Republic of Ireland. I am confident that the FSA is doing a very good job in this country and will continue to do so.

Stephen Mosley: There are suggestions that the future of the red tractor mark may be at threat. The red tractor mark guarantees the high quality of UK produce. Is this issue not a sign that we should be backing such schemes and increasing their use in the future?

David Heath: Producer-led and processor-led quality assurance schemes are a valuable tool for consumers, enabling them to know exactly the provenance of what they are eating, and the welfare conditions under which the animals, in the case of meat, have been kept. That is to be recommended to the industry and the consumer.

Fiona Mactaggart: This scandal illustrates the failure of one of our largest companies to ensure that its supply chain reflects the values it purports to uphold. I sponsored the Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill as a ten-minute rule Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) is the promoter of its Second Reading on Friday. It provides a tool for the companies themselves to ensure that their supply chains reflect the values they purport to uphold and do not include such criminal practices. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Whips Office to ensure that the Government do not prevent the Bill going through, so that we can change this situation?

David Heath: I do not honestly believe that there is any legal impediment at the moment to retailers doing a proper job of establishing the provenance of the food they serve on their shelves.

Kris Hopkins: We already have strict rules, with penalties, relating to food tracing and labelling. Should we not review those penalties to provide a greater deterrence to companies?

David Heath: We continue to keep our policies on labelling under review. In this case, however, it appears that it is not simply a labelling error. We are almost certainly talking about real criminality, and there are very clear laws in place to deal with such criminality.

Kevan Jones: This scandal—because that is what it is—has affected supermarket chains in this country. What investigations have been carried out of the beefburgers that go into the fast food chains, and how confident can my constituents be that they are getting a Big Mac rather than a Shergar Mac?

David Heath: Those investigations are under way to ensure that if this scandal is replicated in other low-cost beefburgers, it is picked up and we take appropriate action.

Philip Hollobone: Given that the FSA has responsibility for food safety, I am surprised and disappointed that a Health Minister is not at least sitting in on the Minister’s response to this urgent question. Likewise, no shadow Health Minister is present either. Will the Minister send a signal to the authorities in the Irish Republic that if there is any criminality, exemplary sentences should be handed out?

David Heath: The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has responsibility for the FSA, has apologised, because she is abroad today. That is why she is not here. Yes, we clearly want these matters to be prosecuted and dealt with with appropriate severity, and we will continue our dialogue with the Irish authorities to ensure that whatever they do is consonant with that.

Cathy Jamieson: I do not eat meat, but the majority of my constituents do, and I think that looking on today they will be surprised and disappointed by the tone of the Minister’s comments suggesting that those of us standing up for consumers are somehow talking down the food industry. Will he revisit the proposed cuts to the FSA’s budget to ensure that meat hygiene inspections are not compromised?

David Heath: As I have explained many times, the FSA is a responsibility of the Department of Health, but I have no reason to suppose that its activities will be compromised by future budgetary constraints. I am absolutely clear—let me repeat this—that we ought to be very concerned about this matter on behalf of consumers in this country, but we also ought to recognise that it does not mean that food across the country sold by all retailers is suspect. It is not, and that is the point that I am trying to make. At such times, consumers need to be reassured that systems are in place—systems that, in fact, caught this cross-contamination in this case.

Glyn Davies: As a result of this serious incident, several supermarkets in Britain have removed a lot of products from their shelves as a precaution. Does my hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates a responsible attitude on the part of British retailers in dealing with this serious issue?

David Heath: I think that the great majority of businesses in this country take an extraordinarily responsible attitude to their duties to the consumer. That is precisely the point I am trying to make. It makes it all the more important that where we find that abuse has taken place, we act urgently and effectively to prevent it from happening again.

Kevin Brennan: Many of my constituents, like those of other Members, rely on brands such as the Tesco everyday value brand, because of the high price of food. Does the Minister understand that his remarks and tone today give the impression that he has been captured, stunned, trussed up and served to the nation as the Minister for the producer interest?

David Heath: That is clearly not the case and is clearly not reflected in anything I have said. I have said all along that the interests of the consumer are paramount.

Debbie Abrahams: Is it more or less likely that this sort of food safety scandal will happen again in view of the reduction in food safety surveillance and the downgrading of food safety regulations?

David Heath: As I have said, I do not think that there is a downgrading of surveillance. We take the matter extremely seriously and ensure that what we do is targeted in the most effective way in order to pick up irregularities when they occur. It is very important that people recognise that. It is also important to recognise that we had here a system picking up a defect, not ignoring it.

Anne McGuire: Earlier the Minister said that there was collaboration on these issues. Given that the Irish Food Safety Authority’s tests were undertaken in November, could he advise the House when DEFRA was informed of those tests?

David Heath: DEFRA would not have been the first port of call, because this is a matter between the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Food Standards Agency in this country. I understand that they had a dialogue earlier this week.

Diana Johnson: On such an important issue, where is the Secretary of State and when did Ministers know about it?

David Heath: I am the Minister of State for agriculture and food.

Thomas Docherty: Mr Jeff Rooker, the chairman of the FSA, is due to stand down in just a few months’ time. Will the Minister ensure that the Department of Health fills the post before June? [Interruption.]

David Heath: I am sorry; because of the noise, I did not quite catch the tenor of the question.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. I understand people’s consternation on this matter, but let us hear Mr Docherty’s question and then the Minister can answer it.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. Mr Jeff Rooker, who is the chairman of the FSA, is due to stand down in just a few months’ time. Will the Minister of State ensure that the Department of Health fills that important role before June?

David Heath: He is actually Lord Rooker—and somebody who in the past has filled the position that I currently occupy. He is standing down—that is absolutely right. Of course the post will be filled, because it is an extremely important one, and I have no doubt that the timetable will be consonant with the time of his departure.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Tessa Munt: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady is too late. If she had risen earlier, she would have got in. We were drawing matters to a close. I thank the Minister and other colleagues for their co-operation.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week will be:
	Monday 21 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.
	Tuesday 22 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House on the Succession to the Crown Bill.
	Wednesday 23 January—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 24 January—Debate on a motion relating to reducing the voting age, followed by general debate on the Holocaust memorial day. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 25 January—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Succession to the Crown Bill.
	Tuesday 29 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, followed by remaining stages of the HGV Road User Levy Bill.
	Wednesday 30 January—Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 31 January—Consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 1 February—Private Members’ Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 31 January will be:
	Thursday 31 January—Debate on the 30th anniversary of S4C, followed by debate on the military justice system.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming business. May I also thank him for the written statement today on public reading stages for Bills?
	We welcome the announcement that the House will debate, on a Back-Bench business motion, Holocaust memorial day. It is right that we remember the premeditated murder of millions of people, mostly Jews, during the holocaust.
	We agree with the Government’s decision to provide logistical support for the French operation in Mali. The brutal rebel regime has been terrorising the civilian population. Its links with al-Qaeda pose a security threat. The killing of two oil workers in Algeria and the kidnapping of more than 20 of their colleagues shows that the threat from al-Qaeda remains serious. This is
	an extremely dangerous and, for the families, deeply worrying situation. We recognise that Ministers might be limited in what they can say in public until the situation is resolved, but will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that the Government keep the House updated when it is appropriate to do so?
	We are less than three weeks into the new year, and three major retailers have gone into administration. First Jessops, then this week HMV and Blockbuster. More than 10,000 retail jobs have gone or are at risk, impacting on communities across the country. The growth of online business has had a major impact on the structure of the retail economy, but the hollowing out of our high streets has a detrimental effect on local communities. The Government could support the change in the retail sector by ensuring that global online retailers paid their fair share of tax here in the UK. It has also been revealed this week that Ministers have been including unpaid work experience posts in their employment figures. So, while real jobs are disappearing on the high street, Ministers have spent their time conniving to boost artificially the employment figures. May we have an urgent statement on that from the Business Secretary?
	Students at Stanford university were last week regaled by Mr Steve Hilton’s accounts of his time in No. 10. He told them:
	“Very often you’ll wake up in the morning and hear on the…news”—
	a Government announcement—
	“…and you think…it’s not just that we didn’t know it was happening, but we don’t even agree with it!”
	None of us was in the least surprised by that observation. After all, Mr Oliver Dowden, the deputy chief of staff at No. 10, said he was
	“surprised on a day-to-day basis”
	by his own Government’s announcements. The fact that the Government’s aides wander the world saying that No. 10 is a shambles does raise the question of who is responsible.
	This week, we learned that Ministers have found someone new to blame: the civil service. The list of those the Government have blamed for their difficulties keeps on growing. We have had the weather—at different times, it has been too hot, too cold, too windy or too wet for the economy to grow. We have had Her Majesty, for having a diamond jubilee, we have had the Olympics for distracting us, and the Deputy Prime Minister has been blamed for just about everything. Next, they will be turning on each other. Oh—they are.
	That brings me to Europe. The Prime Minister told The Sun in 2009 that
	“if we win that election, we cannot afford to waste time having a row with Europe.”
	Well, the Conservatives did not win the election, and they are having a row about Europe. The Prime Minister has decided that crossing the North sea to Holland will put sufficient distance between him and his Back Benchers to allow him safely to deliver his European speech. No doubt the Dutch people are eagerly anticipating his remarks, but will the Leader of the House suggest to the Prime Minister that he might choose to make a statement to this House?
	Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, we had questions but no answers, so perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us this: is it the Government’s intention that
	the UK will be a full member of the European Union in five years’ time? The Prime Minister refuses to answer, but Cabinet Ministers have been falling over each other to offer different answers. The Local Government Secretary said that he might vote to leave; the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) thinks the idea is barking; the Education Secretary thinks that it might be a good idea to leave; and the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that it would have a chilling effect on our economy. I can quite understand why the Foreign Secretary, witnessing all that, decided to go and spend some time in Australia. Given that we had two statements on Leveson, are we now going to have three on Europe: one by the Deputy Prime Minister, one by the Prime Minister, and one by rebel Tory Cabinet Ministers? There we have it: the Government are divided, the Prime Minister has lost control, and party management is trumping the national interest. It is Maastricht all over again.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her comments, and particularly for her welcome for the written ministerial statement on public reading stages. I also share her welcome for the Backbench Business Committee’s decision to timetable a debate on Holocaust memorial day. I am a supporter of the Holocaust Educational Trust and a member of its council, and I have been with students to Auschwitz-Birkenau, as I know many Members have done. Holocaust memorial day is an occasion on which we can commemorate and understand the nature of that horror. It helps us to understand the applications of that genocide to the issues of today, and the horrors that man unfortunately still tends to visit on other members of mankind.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about Mali. She will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) made a statement on that matter earlier in the week. I know that my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence will ensure that the House is updated on that issue, and, when it is appropriate to do so, on the events in Algeria. The Government condemn what has happened there. We are acting in concert with our allies in response. We send our condolences to the families of this and other countries’ nationals who have been killed and captured, but we will not rest from trying to recover those who have been kidnapped.
	The hon. Lady asked about the high street, and she will recall the Portas review. The Government are supporting regeneration in the high street, but she and the House must understand completely that the Government cannot stand in the way of change in the economy—and changes are taking place, which will impact on high-street retailers. Some high-street retailers will succeed and prosper; others unfortunately will not. One of the key things that this Government have set out to do is always to try to ensure that we give the private sector an opportunity to grow. The evidence for that—the hon. Lady neglected to put it before the House—is the creation of more than 1 million jobs in the private sector since the general election. That is precisely what this Government are doing.
	I was amused, but I was not much questioned by the shadow Leader of the House on some other issues. A former civil servant myself, I have seen press reports
	suggesting that the Prime Minister referred to “Yes Minister” as a documentary, but I am not aware that he did; I think I did in the House.

Chris Bryant: A leadership bid!

Andrew Lansley: I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. For the purposes of “Yes, Minister”, I have been both Bernard and Jim Hacker. What I can say with great confidence—I know it is true of this coalition Government—is that as my esteemed colleague Lord Fowler once said, “Ministers decide.” That is true; Ministers do decide. We take the decisions and we take the responsibility.
	Finally, I do not want to chide the shadow Leader of the House too much, but once again she and her colleagues have not given notice to the House today of what the business might be for the Opposition day next Wednesday. I wonder whether they lack options. If they feel that they do, let me suggest gently, given that the hon. Lady was talking about and asking questions about Europe, that the Opposition might like to have a debate on Europe. Then we might discover the Labour party’s policy on Europe. As far as I can see, the Leader of the Opposition is willing to go on the radio and say that there are areas in which Britain needs powers back, but not to endorse the idea of a negotiation, the purpose of which is to achieve that. I thus have no idea what the Labour party’s approach might be.
	Following the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) saying in a debate on the welfare benefits uprating that he was
	“happy to debate priorities within”—[Official Report, 8 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 217]—
	the spending envelope, perhaps we could have a debate on that so that we can hear the Labour party’s proposals. Otherwise, we could have a debate on the elasticity of money supply, since the Labour party has made proposals for additional taxes, which would raise something over £2 billion, but appears to believe that that money is capable of matching spending pledges of more than £30 billion. Elasticity of money supply seems to be the Labour party’s approach.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. There is heavy pressure on time today, as I have already indicated, making it imperative that contributions from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike are brief. Moreover, I remind the House that, in accordance with convention, hon. and right hon. Members who came into the Chamber after the Leader of the House had begun his statement or who exited during it, should not stand and expect to be called.

Stewart Jackson: My right hon. Friend will know that from January next year 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians will potentially have access to the UK under the free movement directive. This Government are at risk of exhibiting institutionalised torpor on this issue. There has been no proper liaison with local authorities, no proper analysis of the likely numbers coming here and no analysis of whether we can vary the free movement directive to protect our core
	public services and our employment market. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to look at this matter as a matter of urgency, because we have only 11 months left?

Andrew Lansley: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are actively considering the issue. Rather than adopting the last Government’s attitude to the accession of member states, we are deploying as much of the extension of transitional measures as is available to us. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government are in contact with local government representatives, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is leading a ministerial group which is considering matters relating to access to benefits and other services for those who come here. We do not want to exaggerate, as it were, the pull of this country rather than others for people exercising free movement in the European Union as a result of the differential in that regard.

Alison Seabeck: We already know from the former policy adviser to No. 10 that the Government are not in control of some of the policy announcements that are emerging, but this week we heard from Ministers in the Ministry of Defence that they were unable to check 70 A3 pages relating to apparently low-impact cuts. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House to explain exactly what was in those documents, and to reveal whether he is actually in charge of his Department and the decisions that it makes?

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure that the hon. Lady knows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence very well. I do, and I can assure her that he is very much in control of his Department—as, indeed, are my other right hon. Friends.

Mark Pritchard: May I join my right hon. Friend in calling for a debate on Europe? In view of the Prime Minister’s important speech tomorrow, may I also encourage him to offer the Prime Minister some advice? Will he advise the Prime Minister to ensure that the timing of a referendum is right, that the question of a referendum is right, and that the politics of a referendum are right?

Andrew Lansley: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that I have every confidence that the Prime Minister’s speech will be correct in all the respects that he has identified. Personally, I think that a lot of nonsense is being talked about this matter. The Government are undertaking a review of competences, and we are very clear about the necessity of understanding how we can create a new settlement with the European Union. The Prime Minister is very clear about that, and I entirely share his view that we want to be in a European Union, but a changed European Union. The EU is undergoing changes in the eurozone and in other areas, but this is an opportunity for us to have a better, more flexible and more competitive Europe, and that is what we will seek to achieve.

Dave Watts: May we have a statement on changes in mobility benefits that will affect both children and adults, given that they were sneaked out without any consultation?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that I will always work with my colleagues to ensure that nothing is “sneaked out” and that Parliament and those who are affected by changes in benefit arrangements are kept informed.

Bob Russell: A further consequence of the collapse of Jessops and HMV is that thousands of customers have been left with worthless gift vouchers. May we have a debate on consumer protection in the gift voucher market, which is worth £4 million a year? Interestingly, figures from the industry show that £250 million-worth of vouchers are never used.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that many Members will have the utmost sympathy for the people who held gift and credit vouchers, some of whom may not have been able to afford to lose them. The law provides for all unsecured creditors to be treated in the same way in the event of an insolvency, and the list of preferential creditors is kept to an absolute minimum. However, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. He may wish to establish whether there is scope for a debate about the issue on the Adjournment, or through the Backbench Business Committee.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Has the Leader of the House seen reports in the press this morning that, for the first time since 1994, Camelot is to increase the price of a lottery ticket, from £1 to £2? Will a Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport come to the House and make a statement? I fear that that price increase may have an impact on contributions to good causes.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I have seen those reports. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, after the passage of so many years the initial £1 ticket price could not possibly start rising by small increments, and it was only a question of the point at which it was appropriate for it to be adjusted substantially. Obviously Camelot and, presumably, the Lottery Commission will have to consider the potential impact on money that is raised for good causes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to hear more from my colleagues at the DCMS, either during Question Time or on some other occasion.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The local government settlement has just been announced. Before next year’s settlement, may we have a debate to discuss the difference between urban money and rural money? That still presents a problem, and now is the time to discuss it so that we can get it right for next year.

Andrew Lansley: That is a matter of concern to many Members, including my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government. Ministers agree that the evidence shows that rural areas are comparatively underfunded, and that a correction should be applied so that there is proper recognition of the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas. I will not elaborate on the details of those adjustments, although I could do so. Although we will want to have
	transitional stability in local government, the Government recognise that such costs need to be understood and reflected in the formula.

Clive Efford: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the performance of the Food Standards Agency? We have just had a poor performance from the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who failed to reassure the House about the FSA’s performance. There are concerns that if horsemeat can be labelled as beef and enter the food chain via supermarket shelves, other sources of meat that have been banned—perhaps because of concerns about BSE—could also enter the food chain. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement from the Department of Health, so that we can be reassured about the performance of the FSA?

Andrew Lansley: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman missed asking his question of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. To my knowledge, my DEFRA colleagues have no plans to make a statement about the performance of the Food Standards Agency, but I will of course ask them to respond to the hon. Gentleman about that. I recall from my time as Secretary of State for Health that we exercise ministerial oversight, although the FSA is a non-ministerial department.

Nicola Blackwood: Hundreds of my constituents spent Christmas and new year on flood alert, like many others, but now that the immediate danger has passed, they still have to cope with the worry of an uncertain future for their flood insurance. May we please have an urgent oral statement on the progress that the Government are making with the insurance companies on agreeing a statement of principles?

Andrew Lansley: I share my hon. Friend’s sense of frustration that the negotiations with the Association of British Insurers have not yet reached a successful conclusion. My hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy are actively engaged in those negotiations. I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) that it is not necessarily helpful to make statements or offer a running commentary in the midst of such negotiations. Our objective is clear: to do something that will offer the necessary protection to householders and, of course, also be fair and responsible to taxpayers.

Geraint Davies: Bob Dylan named himself after Dylan Thomas. We in Swansea will celebrate the centenary of Dylan Thomas’s birth in 2014, and I have asked Bob Dylan whether he would be prepared to give a centenary concert in Swansea, in order that he could blend his music with Dylan Thomas’s poetry. Sony Music has come back and said that Mr Dylan is thinking very positively about the idea. Would the Leader of the House welcome such a concert, and does he agree that it would add to the reputation of Swansea, the popularity of Bob Dylan and the legacy of Dylan Thomas? Also, would the Leader of the House be interested in coming along, or is his answer “Blowing in the Wind”?

Andrew Lansley: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I can attend, I will do so, and I will look forward to it. Perhaps others will join me. Many who come from Swansea might contemplate revisiting it. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is from Swansea, as is the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means—and, indeed, the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury.

Philip Davies: Can the Leader of the House confirm whether the Prime Minister will be making a statement in the House next week on his speech on Europe? Such a statement would give us all the opportunity to congratulate him on the fantastic speech that the Leader of the House confidently predicts and would also expose how out of touch with public opinion the Opposition are on this issue. Given that the shadow Leader of the House was leading with her chin in demanding such a statement, surely it would be a shame to disappoint her.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is not unusual for Prime Ministers of all parties to make speeches, and they sometimes do so in an international context. In this instance, it is important that the Prime Minister does so, because is it important that we communicate not only to the people of this country, but to the people of Europe our determination to achieve changes in Europe that enable the whole of Europe to be more competitive and more flexible. That is sought not only by this country, but by people in many other countries; this is about enhancing democratic accountability. On issues that require reporting to the House, I will, of course, discuss with my right hon. Friends whether it would be appropriate for a statement to be made and ensure that the House knows of any such statement as early as possible.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a debate in Government time that allows Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office to come to the House to explain what work the Department is doing with the Treasury to assist the Northern Ireland Executive in the current serious situation in Northern Ireland, and to address issues such as under-investment in education and housing, and social deprivation? The serious cuts to the block grant in Northern Ireland are having a detrimental effect on people on the ground in Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House give us some assurance on that point?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is having discussions today with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and, I believe, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that the discussions will be very helpful. The right hon. Gentleman will note that questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will take place on Wednesday next week, which may afford an opportunity for a response, but I will of course ask the Secretary of State whether there are further ways in which she can respond to the points that he makes.

Matthew Offord: Last Friday, I was very pleased to visit the NHS Blood and Transplant centre in Colindale to listen to the concerns of management
	and staff. One concern that was raised with me was the low level of blood donations from ethnic and minority groups. That is a particular problem because that blood is used to treat people with sickle cell anaemia. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to advise on how the Government are trying to encourage people from ethnic minority groups to give blood?

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend that we owe blood donors a huge debt of gratitude. Each unit of blood donated helps us to save the lives or improve the health and the lives of three people; on average, one donation helps three people. That is important and I hope that everybody will recognise it. He raises an important specific point. NHS Blood and Transplant runs regular donor recruitment campaigns, including those to encourage blood donations from black and minority ethnic donors. It works with the media, particularly those of particular relevance to those communities, and with celebrities who have support in those communities. In addition, the Department of Health has established the National Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Transplant Alliance, which brings together organisations to tackle the issue of low donor and transplantation rates in those communities.

Alison McGovern: Can we not have a debate in Government time on the state of the high street? Now that we understand the shakiness of the Government’s jobs figures, does it not make the Leader of the House’s assertion just now that market forces will prevail look worrying indeed?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady may wish to go, with others, to the Backbench Business Committee to seek such a debate. The employment figures are not shaky; they are absolutely robust. They are telling us that a great deal of private sector job formation is taking place, and that is very important. It stands in direct contrast with the situation in many other countries. We know that we are suffering from the economic effects of the eurozone crisis, but in contrast with a number of countries in the eurozone we have relatively robust employment figures. That is evidence of the Government’s support for the private sector.

Andrew Selous: The Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire local medical committee, which represents local GPs, has written to me and other MPs to raise its concerns about people coming to this country to access free health care. It says it wants help on this issue, so may we have an urgent debate on how we can offer that?

Andrew Lansley: I understand very well the point my hon. Friend is making. The Government have concluded a major review of the rules and procedures on charging visitors for NHS care. It is important that we understand that those who are here, on whatever basis, have access to emergency care, but that there are rules about those who have access to non-emergency care or continuing care beyond primary care. I hope that Health Ministers will be able to make an announcement about the results of that review soon.

Chris Bryant: I do not want just a statement on Europe; I want a full debate on Europe in Government time. In the old days, we used to have
	four debates a year before European Councils and four statements after European Councils so that the Government’s policy could be scrutinised by the House. I know that they were pretty tedious affairs, with single transferable speeches delivered time after time, not least by myself. It would be good if we could have a bell fitted behind the Speaker’s Chair, so that every time the word “Europe” is mentioned all Pavlov’s dogs on the Government Benches could start slobbering—
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Mr Speaker: There is nothing disorderly about that remark, but I leave Members to make their own assessments on the question of taste.

Andrew Lansley: You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker—there is a distinction between what is in order and what is charming, and that was charmless. I also noted that following oral questions earlier, the hon. Gentleman did not take the trouble to apologise for being completely wrong in suggesting that I had incorrectly informed the House about what was in the ministerial code, but be that as it may.
	I think it is a tremendously positive innovation that a substantial proportion of the House’s time is not in the gift of Government but is available to the Backbench Business Committee. That includes time that was previously allocated to a range of general debates for such purposes. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the need for a debate on Europe, he should get together with other Members and go to the Backbench Business Committee to seek it.

Tessa Munt: The Glastonbury road run is an established, popular and safe annual charitable fundraising event, supported with great good will by our local police and other services. Should the council choose to use the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 because the street is “liable to be obstructed”, local charities lose no funds, but if the council elects this year to use the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the organisers will receive a demand for £1,000, which will have to be paid from charitable donations. Will the Leader of the House raise the matter of clarifying the regulations to separate commercial from charitable street events so that the latter are treated with reason and common sense and not as a county council fundraising effort at the charity’s expense?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and will of course raise the issue with my hon. Friends at the Department. I might be wrong, but I think that in such circumstances the local authority has the discretion to waive those fees in certain cases.

Stephen Doughty: Despite a 400% increase in the demand for food banks since 2010, the Prime Minister has neglected to give clear answers to me or to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about whether he will visit one. May we have a debate on the subject of food banks in this Chamber so that we can bring the facts to the Prime Minister, if he is unwilling to go and see them for himself?

Andrew Lansley: I heard the Prime Minister’s reply during Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, and the hon. Gentleman might recall that during business questions
	last week I made it clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and I have visited a food bank. We rightly appreciate the service that is being provided by food banks and the Department for Work and Pensions operates a food bank referral service that works with them, including, in particular, the Trussell Trust. The Government are also working independently, not least through the Healthy Start scheme, which helps about 500,000 very low-income families across the UK to buy milk, fruit and vegetables as part of a healthy balanced diet.

Guto Bebb: According to TripAdvisor, the town of Llandudno in my constituency has some of the best guest houses in the world. However, if they want to increase business by offering a complimentary glass of wine to their residents as part of an evening meal, they face the disproportionate cost of acquiring a licence. May we have a debate on the Government’s proposals, as set out in the alcohol strategy, for reducing licensing burdens on these ancillary sellers of alcohol?

Andrew Lansley: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If I recall correctly, there was very positive coverage of at least one hotel in Llandudno earlier this week—

Chris Bryant: Over here.

Andrew Lansley: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I was referring specifically to Llandudno in my hon. Friend’s constituency for a second. I sometimes wonder, Mr Speaker, whether the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wants to be in charge of the order of the House. It seems rather impertinent, does it not? If I were disorderly, you would call me to book. I do not need the hon. Gentleman for that to happen.
	I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) some reassurance. On 28 November the Government launched a consultation on whether to reduce the burdens of licensing on businesses that sell alcohol only as a small part of a wider service. That includes guest houses or bed-and-breakfast accommodation that wish to provide alcohol to guests as part of an evening meal. That consultation can be found on the Home Office website. I encourage him and all interested parties to respond before the closing date of 6 February.

Jonathan Ashworth: May we have a debate on Government waste by Departments? Figures that I have uncovered show that Government Departments have produced more than 5,500 circulars, consultation documents and publications since May 2010 at a cost of over £1.3 million, including such exciting titles as “Code of Practice on Noise from Ice-Cream Van Chimes”, “Understanding the relationship between taste and value in culture and sport”, and my personal favourite bedtime reading, “Is your dog barking too much?” Is this really a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Andrew Lansley: I do not have comparative data, but I suspect that under the previous Government there were at least equivalent numbers, but probably much larger numbers of consultations taking place, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. Our responsibility is to make sure not only that we engage the public by consulting fully and adequately, but that we make effective progress with business. That is why we introduced in the
	latter part of last year a new structure for consultations that means that they will be conducted more expeditiously. We will make more progress more quickly and we will help business, not least as a consequence of that, to get certainty more quickly, and it will help us in the process of reducing the burden of regulation.

Christopher Pincher: Some 1,080 people from Tamworth started apprenticeships last year. May we have a debate in Government time on the new traineeship programme so that we can explore how we can further help young people successfully to compete for jobs and avoid the welfare trap that all too many of them endured under Labour?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I hope we might find an opportunity, by one route or another, for further discussion of the announcements made by the Minister for Schools. Traineeships are a welcome addition to the armoury, so to speak, to ensure that all young people get access to the right skills and that all employers find young people in this country who have appropriate skills and attitudes in order to go into work. My hon. Friend is right. Since the election more than a million people have started apprenticeships. The budget has been increased, and even where apprenticeships are not appropriate, through the youth contract work experience and other support to the young people who most need skills have been growing under this Government.

Andy Sawford: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the uses and abuses of zero-hours contracts, which plague many people in my constituency, particularly the most vulnerable workers?

Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Gentleman specifically wants to raise abuses, I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills would be interested to hear from him. I encourage them to respond to him about the nature of those contracts. In some cases—for example, in relation to the NHS—I looked at some of those contracts, and they can play a part in the effective management of a work force and may sometimes be in the interests of workers themselves, as well as their employer. It is all a matter of what the appropriate circumstances are. The hon. Gentleman might like to look for an Adjournment debate or some other opportunity in order to raise these issues.

Oliver Colvile: In the light of the recent rioting in east Belfast, some have suggested that some of the youngsters involved feel that they are not included in the decision-making process. At what stage does my right hon. Friend think Parliament should assess progress on the Good Friday agreement, especially as far as community relations are concerned?

Andrew Lansley: I further remind the House and my hon. Friend of the opportunity to raise such issues with my right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary and her colleagues on Wednesday next week.
	My hon. Friend will be aware that the 1998 Belfast agreement clearly set out the constitutional position in Northern Ireland and the accountability mechanisms that follow from it. I also say to my hon. Friend that the violence and public disorder in Belfast is completely unjustifiable; I do not think it is justified or excused by reference to any issues of that kind.

Natascha Engel: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to make a decision about bringing e-petitions fully in-House, so that people are aware that they are petitioning Parliament and not the Government? If he has not yet had a chance to make that decision, will he sit with me and construct a timetable to make sure that it can be done as quickly as possible?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Lady will know from our discussions and a previous answer in business questions, I am keen for us to make progress on this issue. No decisions have been made, of course; in any case, I hope that such matters would be for the House.
	I hope that we can get together and consider how we can take forward what has been a substantial success. There are now a large number of petitions; there have been some 8 million signatures on 40,000 petitions since the e-petitions website was created. We must not prejudice that, but we must try to make it as relevant as we can to the work of the House, and the hon. Lady’s Committee has done a great deal on that. I am very open to further discussions, and we are working on the issue now.

Philip Hollobone: What on earth is going on at the UK Border Agency? It has never had the best reputation in the world for the timeliness of its responses to Members’ inquiries, but in the past two or three months, it seems to have got many degrees worse; many of my constituents in Kettering are awaiting replies to correspondence that is two or three months old. May we have a statement from the relevant Minister to make sure that the UK Border Agency sorts out its correspondence protocols?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that during questions last week and previously I said that the chief inspector acknowledges that the Border Agency still has a great deal of work to do, but that the situation has started to turn around and is now improving. However, I share with my hon. Friend and many other Members a sense that there is still a way to go. There is a huge volume of correspondence, which is why the agency is introducing a national operating model in March, under which correspondence from hon. Members will be managed through a single process. Guidance has been issued to staff, stressing the need for all correspondence to be dealt with promptly. However, I will take up my hon. Friend’s question with the relevant Minister at the Home Office.

Diana Johnson: From the official figures, which are going to be announced next Wednesday, it will no longer be possible for Members to obtain constituency statistics on the number of jobseekers after each job in their constituencies. That is a real issue in my constituency, which has been top for many months—50 jobseekers after every vacancy. There is no legitimate reason for that statistic not to be provided, so
	may we have a debate on why the Government are choosing to suppress the inconvenient figures that give a real indication and insight into what is happening with local employment around the country?

Andrew Lansley: I will, if I may, talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about that. I am not familiar with the background to the hon. Lady’s point; the availability of statistics through Government Departments is normally approved through the UK Statistics Authority. I will certainly inquire through the Statistics Authority or the Department to ensure that the hon. Lady gets a proper reply, which I can see, too.

David Burrowes: The equal marriage Bill will be published next week. Will there be a statement to explain the rush to redefine marriage and will it address the information from the Commons Library that in the past 12 years no Government Bill determined by a free vote has been announced before the Queen’s Speech?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend seems to have constructed a very particular question about something that may not have occurred because relatively few Government Bills are conducted on a free-vote basis, but I will gladly look back to see what the precedents are. Let me reiterate what I said in last week’s business questions: we have not yet introduced this Bill. My hon. Friend seems to be more knowledgeable than I am. I do not have a timetable for its introduction; I know that we will do it soon but I have not established a date. When the Bill is introduced, we will of course make it very clear how it is properly to be considered.

Ian Lucas: It is
	“a terrible time to have the diversion and uncertainty which build-up to a referendum would entail”.
	Those are not my words but those of the Business Secretary, reported in the Financial Times as what he is going to say today. Is not the reason the Prime Minister will not come to the House with a statement following his speech the fact that he cannot speak on behalf of the Government he leads because they have no coherent policy on Europe, and that is damaging British business and British interests?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid I simply do not accept a word of that. The Government are very clear about what we are doing. We are conducting a review of competence the purpose of which is to enable this country to engage in a negotiation that would lead to a more competitive and more flexible Europe. I heard the hon. Gentleman’s leader saying on a radio programme this morning that he was in favour of a more flexible European Union and that he believed that there were powers that needed to be brought back to this country. He and his party appear to be willing the end but denying the means.

John Glen: Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement on the performance of the NHS bursary unit? One of my constituents, Thomas Petch, is among a large number of students who have
	failed to receive the bursary to which they are entitled, causing massive inconvenience as they rely on it to fund their everyday living.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of his constituent. The changes in the NHS bursary application procedure mean that continuing students need to reapply for their bursary each academic year. A large number of continuing students did not reapply as requested, and this has led to a backlog. I know that the NHS Business Services Authority will take every measure it can to reduce and manage that backlog quickly. May I assure my hon. Friend that his constituent, Mr Petch, will receive his January payment in the next week?

Fiona Mactaggart: On 14 February it is an international day of preventing violence against women, and MPs from all parties have supported the notion that this House should contribute to events and debates on that day. If the Leader of the House were to make an early decision and inform the Backbench Business Committee that 14 February would be a day on which it could allocate time, it might allocate it to such a debate. Will he tell the House now that we can have that debate on 14 February?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid I am not in a position to make that announcement now, but I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s point, not least because I heard her and other Members make it to the Backbench Business Committee at its meeting on Tuesday. I will discuss with my colleagues whether we are able to meet her request and the requests of other Members and liaise with the Committee on that.

Kris Hopkins: On Sunday 10 March the Sue Ryder Manorlands 10 km race will take place in Keighley—an event that has raised £120,000 over the past four years. May we have a debate not only celebrating the moneys raised but on how such great events bring communities together?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I am glad to have the opportunity to share in my hon. Friend’s support for the 10 km run, the money that it raises and the good causes that it will be supporting. It is an illustration of something that Members across the House understand from their communities—that this kind of voluntary action enables people to have a great deal of fun, in this particular instance, to be healthier, and to offer a great deal of support to other people who are in need.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on the cost of ministerial travel? Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said earlier, it is clear that the Prime Minister will not be making his speech in Holland as Prime Minister and leader of the coalition Government, as other Ministers have said, but as leader of the Conservative party on what the Conservatives will do in five years’ time in the unlikely event that they will be in government, so should not the Conservative party be paying for this trip?

Andrew Lansley: I will say two things. First, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Prime Minister will speak tomorrow in the Netherlands as Prime Minister.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The position is very clear—he will speak as Prime Minister and if, during the course of that speech, he refers to the Conservative manifesto or beyond the next election, he will, of course, be referring beyond the scope of the coalition agreement. That is quite usual—there is nothing unusual about it at all.
	I do not have the figures in front of me, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to have a debate about the cost of ministerial travel in this Parliament relative to its cost in the previous Parliament, we would be very happy to have it.

Glyn Davies: I have raised in previous business questions the potential negative impact on the organ donation system in England of plans by the Welsh Government to change the system in Wales to one based on presumed consent. Yesterday I received a copy of a letter to the Welsh Government from the UK’s foremost expert on the issue, pointing out that the consultation process adopted by the Welsh Government was fundamentally flawed. Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early opportunity for MPs to discuss this crucial issue before damage is done and it is too late?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. These issues do not relate solely to Wales; they also relate to England, because they have direct implications for the organ donation system in England. I made that clear to the Welsh Assembly Government when I was Secretary of State for Health and I know that my right hon. Friend the Welsh Secretary will have done so, too. I do not know what opportunities there may be for a debate on the matter in this House or, indeed, in the Welsh Grand Committee, but I will certainly discuss it with my colleagues.

Yvonne Fovargue: This week the Legal Services Commission confirmed a £655,000 cut to the Law Centres Network, the Advice Services Alliance and the Royal Courts of Justice’s citizens advice bureaux service. May we have a debate on what that will mean for those organisations, the organisations they support and, most importantly, the people who will no longer be able to use them?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady may have an opportunity to raise that issue at Justice questions on Tuesday 5 February, but if that seems far off and she would like a response on the specific implications, I will gladly talk to my right hon. Friend at the Ministry of Justice and secure it for her.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Atos Work Capability Assessments

Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Atos work capability assessments.
	I warmly thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling me and cross-party colleagues to introduce this debate on Atos work capability assessments. There is enormous concern about the issue both in the country and in this House, as witnessed by the fact that more than 30 Members wish to speak on a Thursday. To try to ensure that they can all do so, I propose to speak for no more than 10 to 15 minutes. I hope that colleagues will accept that, for reasons of pressure on time, I do not propose to take interventions.
	As knowledge of the debate has spread, I have been sent nearly 300 case histories, many of which make heart-rending reading. I cannot begin to do justice to their feelings of distress, indignation, fear, helplessness and, indeed, widespread anger at the way they have been treated. Nor can I easily contain my own feelings at the slowness, rigidity and insensitivity with which Atos and the Department for Work and Pensions have responded—or very often not responded—to the cries of pain that they have heard repeatedly. I have time to cite briefly only three examples which show how extreme is the dysfunction and malfunctioning of the Atos assessments.
	The first example concerns a constituent of mine who was epileptic almost from birth and was subject to grand mal seizures. At the age of 24, he was called in by Atos, classified as fit for work and had his benefit cut by £70 a week. He appealed, but became agitated and depressed and lost weight, fearing that he could not pay his rent or buy food. Three months later, he had a major seizure that killed him. A month after he died, the DWP rang his parents to say that it had made a mistake and his benefit was being restored.
	The second example, also from the Oldham area, concerns a middle-aged woman who was registered blind and in an advanced stage of retinitis pigmentosa. She was assessed at 9 points—well short of the 15 that are needed—and her incapacity benefit was withdrawn. On review by a tribunal, the Atos rating of 9 points was increased to 24.
	The third case—I could have chosen from hundreds of others—also comes from the north-west and concerns an insulin-dependent diabetic with squamous cell cancer, Hughes syndrome, which involves a failed immune system, peripheral neuropathy, which meant that he had no feeling in his feet or legs, heart disease, depression and anxiety. Despite his life-threatening condition, he was placed in the work-related activity group.
	Those and myriad other examples illustrate incontrovertibly that Atos’s current work capability assessment system is drastically flawed, and for several reasons. First, Atos is an IT firm and it uses the so-called Logic Integrated Medical Assessment, which is often described as “rigid” and “tick-box” because computer-based systems make it difficult for health professionals to
	exercise their professional judgment. Because such a mechanistic system has little or no regard for the complexity of the needs of severely disabled or sick persons, the British Medical Association and others have condemned the current WCA as “not fit for purpose”.

Debbie Abrahams: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher: Despite my hon. Friend being my colleague in Oldham, I really must keep strictly to what I said, but I very much hope that she will be called.
	Secondly, assessed persons regularly felt that the opinion of their own doctor or of other specialist medical personnel who were treating them was either ignored or overridden. That is all the more serious when Atos’s practices simply do not adhere to the guidance for doctors set down by the General Medical Council.
	Thirdly, because of the failure of so many initial assessments, the appeal procedure is grossly overloaded and hugely expensive. No less than 41% of decisions are appealed, of which 38% are won. At £60 million in a single year, the appeals have cost the taxpayer more than half of the £110 million that was spent on the original assessments. Moreover, the National Audit Office has castigated the Department for failing to penalise Atos for what it politely calls its “underperformance” and for not setting “sufficiently challenging” targets.
	Fourthly, there are concerns about the responsibility for work capability assessments, in particular that of the Atos chief medical officer. Professor Michael O’Donnell joined Atos from the American company, Unum, formerly UnumProvident, which had a very poor reputation in the US, where it was described as an “outlaw company” by the US authorities, partly because it was regarded as a “disability denial factory”. In that situation, the responsibilities of the Minister and the Secretary of State need to be established clearly.
	Against that background, it is frankly not good enough for the Minister to respond to the debate by saying that there have been three Harrington reviews, and that the Department is doing the best it can to improve procedures. The fundamental issue is this: how can pursuing with such insensitive rigour 1.6 million claimants on incapacity benefit, at a rate of 11,000 assessments every week, be justified when it has led, according to the Government’s own figures, to 1,300 persons dying after being put into the work-related activity group, 2,200 people dying before their assessment is complete, and 7,100 people dying after being put into the support group? Is it reasonable to pressurise seriously disabled persons into work so ruthlessly when there are 2.5 million unemployed, and when on average eight persons chase every vacancy, unless they are provided with the active and extensive support they obviously need to get and hold down work, which is certainly not the case currently?
	I therefore want to conclude by asking the Minister five specific questions to which I want a specific answer before the end of the debate. First, it is true that Harrington has produced minor adjustments—implemented at a glacial place—but the underlying system remains largely undisturbed. The BMA and the NAO have therefore called for a thorough, rigorous and transparently independent assessment of the suitability of the work capability assessment. Will the Minister now implement that?
	Secondly, will the Minister accept that the current criteria and descriptors do not sufficiently—or even at all—take into account fluctuating conditions, especially episodic mental health problems? How will he rectify that?
	Thirdly, will the Minister provide full and transparent details of the Atos contract? They should not be hidden by specious claims of commercial confidentiality when Atos is the sole provider of what is clearly a public service. Better still, given that Atos has failed so dramatically, why does he not in-source the work back into the NHS?
	Fourthly, how will the Minister ensure that the medical expertise of disabled persons’ doctors and related professionals is fully taken into account before assessments are completed?
	Lastly, I want to provide a full dossier to the Secretary of State so that he fully understands what is being done today in his name, and to bring a small delegation to see him from some of the excellent organisations of disabled people who have heroically battled to highlight and tackle the distress and pain caused by Atos. Can I please be assured that the Secretary of State will see such a delegation?
	I repeat that I am sincerely grateful for this debate, for the co-operation of colleagues from all parties, and for the detailed responses I have received from so many hundreds of victims of Atos, but I assure the Minister of this: the debate is important, but it will certainly not be the end of the matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. If everybody could resume their seats, I just want to inform the House that there are 28 Members who wish to participate in this relatively short debate. My responsibility is to protect Back Benchers’ time and get as many Back Benchers in as I possibly can. While we are starting at six minutes, you should start to think in terms of a four-minute contribution if you possibly can, so that as many Members as possible can get in.

Cheryl Gillan: I offer my hearty congratulations to the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). He has long been known as a champion in this area. I listened carefully to what he had to say and I am afraid that my experience, and that of the people I have been talking to, mirrors much of what he is saying.
	I would like to address the debate from the perspective of people with autism. There is a great deal of concern on both sides of the House, and among our constituents, about the way this process handles people with autism. The National Autistic Society, which provides advice to so many of us in this House and on which we rely a great deal, believes that the work capability assessment should be delivered differently so that it is fair and appropriate for claimants with autism.
	More than 2,000 people have signed a National Autistic Society petition to Atos, which was launched following the “Dispatches” and “Panorama” investigations, with which many of us are familiar, into the company last year. The programme claimed that Atos was working to internal targets on the numbers of people being put into
	the work-related activity group, the support group or as being fit for work. Atos has indicated that it is open to working with the National Autistic Society and other charities, including in the context of this petition, but I have a specific question for the Minister. Will the Minister provide assurances that no such targets are in place?
	There have been key concerns with the face-to-face assessment process. The work capability assessment model can certainly prove to be challenging in the context of claimants with autism. Most people with autism have difficulties with social interaction, and some will also lack insight into their difficulties. They may also have difficulty understanding the questions being asked and with communicating a response. Even travelling to the assessment centre and engaging with the process may be difficult to understand and create great anxiety. Therefore, face-to-face assessments may not always result in a fair and accurate assessment of claimants’ ability to work. The NAS has had a lot of inquiries relating to the quality and appropriateness of the WCA for claimants with autism, and that feeds into a broader picture of widespread concern.
	There is also concern about the awareness of, and training for, assessors. In the cases of claimants with autism, including high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome, difficulties in the workplace may not be obvious and may not become apparent in the course of a face-to-face assessment. That could be due to the hidden nature of the disability and a desire to appear more able than they really are to an assessor, or to other difficulties with this form of communication associated with the condition. It is therefore a strongly held view that it is vital that claimants with autism are assessed by professionals who have received autism-specific training. That would ensure that assessors have a better understanding of autism and routinely make reasonable adjustments as part of their assessment.

Meg Hillier: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I have only a short time to speak.
	I think people are pleased that the Government have committed to having mental and cognitive champions, but I believe that people are concerned at the number of champions, their level of training and their expertise in autism. Our understanding is that there about 60 across the UK and it remains unclear what, if any, expertise they have in autism.
	On collecting evidence, the NAS has consistently called for a tiered approach to assessment, both in terms of the WCA and the assessment process, for the personal independence payment under the new benefits system. I hope that the Minister, who has met recently with the NAS, Mind and other organisations, has listened carefully, and I am looking for reassurance in his response that all these points will be taken onboard.
	In summary, I have a few questions for the Minister. What steps will the Government take to ensure that Atos collects existing evidence relating to a claimant’s capability to work, which would create a more cost-effective and streamlined system? Do WCA assessors receive autism-specific training? If so, of what does it consist?
	How many of the mental and cognitive champions currently operating at Atos assessment centres have specific autism training? How will he monitor the effectiveness of the introduction of those mental and cognitive champions?
	I am sorry I could not give way to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), because I know she has a great track record and a special interest in this matter, but I hope that she will make her own speech. I hope that I have reflected in my contribution the widely held concern about this process among those least able to speak for themselves, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

Natascha Engel: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and thank him for bringing this debate to the Backbench Business Committee. We were delighted to schedule it, and the number of Members present from both sides of the House demonstrates the importance of this issue mainly from a constituency perspective. I, like all other Members, have received a huge amount of correspondence about awful, tragic cases of individuals who have been badly treated by Atos during their work capability assessments.
	The fault lies not with Atos, but with its employer, which, in this case, is the Department for Work and Pensions. When we look at the other employers for which Atos works, such as Royal Mail and the NHS, we see numerous cases of people who have been signed off work—not just their current work, but for any work ever again, with a recommendation that they be retired from all kinds of work—going back to Atos, but this time when it is employed by the DWP, and being assessed as entirely fit for work. They get no points and are deemed fit for work. As my right hon. Friend said, the number of people who are not just not fit for work but who die after being assessed as fit for work, is a reflection not of Atos but of the DWP. That is where the questions need to be asked.

Ian Mearns: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that in Gateshead, of the 1,400 cases taken to appeal by the citizens advice bureau, more than 1,200 were successful. I am worried about the CAB’s lack of capacity to deal with other cases that it could have taken but which have been unsuccessful because they were not advocated at tribunal.

Natascha Engel: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point as I want to come to that.
	The proportion of original Atos decisions that are overturned is shocking—it is about 30% or 40%. I would be grateful if the Minister replied to that point. Precisely how many people deemed fit for work by Atos have their decisions overturned on appeal and are signed off work? I have asked about that in the past. The number is very high, but I would like to have the precise figure.
	The welfare rights organisations dealing with the people who are being deemed fit for work—for instance, the unemployed workers centre in Derbyshire and the CAB—are swamped at the same time as they are having their funding cut. Not only are they swamped with
	work, but volunteers are leaving in droves because they cannot cope with the amount of work and the stress of seeing all these cases.
	How many people deemed fit for work who do not take their cases to appeal then find work? As has been said, the employment situation, especially the further north we go in the country, gets worse and worse. In my constituency, there are 15 people applying for every job. Is it really for the best to sign people as fit for work when there are no jobs to be had? I would like answers to those specific questions.
	We all want people to go back to work if they can, but the welfare state is there to protect those who cannot. People who are not fit for work would love to work if they could, but they cannot. The jobs are not there, but they are being signed fit for work. How many of them are getting a job, and how many of them are just being signed over to destitution?

Stephen Gilbert: I join hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) on securing this timely debate.
	As the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said, we need to separate two things. The first is the principle of assessing those on out-of-work benefits to establish whether they can rejoin the workplace. As everyone in the House accepts, that must happen if we are to be responsible guardians of the public purse and if we are to help people who can work to get back into work. The second is the need to look in detail at the practice of how the assessments are being conducted.

John Leech: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so quickly. A number of people who have been assessed reasonably recently had their incapacity benefits stopped but then reintroduced on appeal are now being reassessed and found fit for work once again. Surely people who have recently been assessed and won on appeal should not be being recalled by Atos.

Stephen Gilbert: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and what he says goes to the nub of the points I wish to make. This debate should focus on the practice of how these assessments are being conducted. He, like me and probably every Member, will have had scores, if not hundreds, of constituents experience a similar problem as they go through the system.
	There is a consensus in the House on the principle of making assessments. The last Administration set up the WCA and the Atos contract in 2008, and it was right that in 2007 Liberal Democrat Members pressed for and secured the annual review of how the WCA was being implemented. Over the last few years, as every hon. Member will know, these reviews have revealed a catalogue of errors, and, to their credit, the coalition Government have taken action: there has been increased flexibility for assessors to take additional evidence, not least from consultants; there has been better communication with people undergoing assessment; and new standards have been implemented for descriptors. All that is having
	results. The numbers going into the ESA support group have risen to 26%—from 11% under the last Administration —so fewer people are now being found fit for work.
	None of us can underestimate or undervalue the human effect that some of these assessments are having. I would like to read into the record an e-mail I received from a constituent. It is probably similar to e-mails that all hon. Members have received. It reads:
	“They never asked about the amount of pain I have to contend with or how tired I get from coping with it. After the interview I was told I was to be disallowed ESA benefit. I could probably go down the route of appeal but I really don’t feel like fighting for a benefit that I have already been made to feel that I do not deserve, neither do I have the energy”
	to appeal. If we in this House cannot give voice to these people, who are some of the most vulnerable in our society, I really do not know what we are for.

Steve Rotheram: To illustrate one of those cases, I shall cite a letter I received from a constituent, Janine, in Liverpool. Her dad was thrown off sickness benefit in November after an Atos work capability assessment and was declared fit for work despite suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Six weeks later, on Christmas day, Janine’s father died. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this example clearly highlights the fact that the work capability assessment, run by the DWP, is fundamental flawed?

Stephen Gilbert: As I have said, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, the point is not the principle of conducting assessments but the practice—how they are rolled out and how millions of our constituents experience them. Constituents have told me that they find the process dehumanising and degrading and that they are often seen by people who are unqualified to make an assessment of their condition. We have to get the assessment process right. That is right for the individuals concerned, but it is also the decent, moral and humane thing to do.
	I am particularly concerned about those with fluctuating conditions such as ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis, or chronic fatigue syndrome—and those with lifelong degenerative conditions, who will never recover from the illness from which they are suffering but who continue to be called in for repeated assessments. The principle is the right one; the practice, however, is failing many millions of the most vulnerable people across the country. Although the coalition has made welcome efforts to get right a system that it inherited from the last Government, much more still needs to be done to ensure that we are doing things in a humane way.

Annette Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that most people were extremely pleased that Professor Harrington convened his working group to look at the descriptors for fluctuating conditions? However, whatever has happened has not solved the problem for people with ME, multiple sclerosis or mental health conditions. It is therefore imperative that the DWP get on with this and make the system work for those people.

Stephen Gilbert: I could not have put it better. This is not about the principle of assessments; it is about how they are conducted in practice. We owe it to some of the most vulnerable people across our country to ensure that we get this right.

Pamela Nash: Nothing has shocked me more as the Member of Parliament for Airdrie and Shotts than the sheer scale of anxiety and hardship caused by the flawed work capability assessments, which is apparent in the number of people visiting my office every week. I am sure that that experience is replicated across the House and that we will hear many such stories today. I have had a frail lady sitting in my office who had only recently finished chemotherapy but had been told she was fit for work. I have had a lady who suffered 90% burns to her body—she spends every day in severe pain—and was told that she was now ready to join the Work programme. I could list hundreds of others—sadly, these are very familiar stories. These people are having their lives ruined by a system that was designed to support them.
	Last year the whole country came together to celebrate the Paralympic games. I have to say that the vast majority of the country joined those booing in the Olympic park when the Chancellor took the spotlight, but he was not the only unpopular person at the games. Atos’s sponsorship was also widely condemned, leading to protests throughout the country, including by our very own Team GB. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government have not listened to the Scottish people on this. In fact, our Deputy First Minister has welcomed Atos’s sponsorship of the Commonwealth games next year. She has tried to wriggle out of it by saying that Atos is only carrying out the will of the UK Government. However, the Scottish people disagree not only with the structure of these work capability assessments but with the incompetence with which they are being carried out.
	As I have such limited time today, I will restrict the rest of my comments to the recording of work capability assessments, which I have raised before on the Floor of the House. I know that there has been a pilot of recording work capability assessments as a result of Harrington review. The result was that the majority of those being assessed do not wish to have their assessments recorded. However, recording should continue to be offered to everyone being assessed, and the reason for doing this—the huge number of assessments whose results are overruled when they go to appeal—should also be explained to every claimant.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Does she agree that the Atos assessment process is not only humiliating and demeaning for those involved—and often plain wrong—but counter-productive, in the sense that it adds to the stress they are under, making sick people even sicker?

Pamela Nash: I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. I am sure she has had the experience, as I have, of seeing people who have claimed employment and support allowance as a result of a physical disability or illness ending up with mental health problems owing to the stress of going through the system.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that it says a great deal about the nature of the work capability assessment that not only do many people win their appeals but that so many are appealing that this can lead to delays of up to 25 weeks for them to be heard?

Pamela Nash: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We have heard that one in six of those claiming ESA ends up eventually winning their appeal, but in North Lanarkshire—the local authority area that I live in—60% of appeals are being won by those lodging them.
	To return to the recording of assessments, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), made it clear in a Westminster Hall debate last September that he felt that Atos
	“should make recording available on a voluntary basis”.—[Official Report, 4 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 42WH.]
	However, not a single constituent of mine who has come to see me about work capability assessments has told me that they have been offered the prospect of having it recorded. In fact, one constituent told me that she had asked for her assessment to be filmed, following her previous assessment, which resulted in a report that bore little resemblance to that assessment. On that occasion she was found fit for work, but she subsequently won her appeal. She was informed that recording would indeed be possible, but that she would have to pay for a private, independent company to come in to record her assessment. Equipment was not made available to her. She had hoped to take a family member in to film the assessment, but was told that this would not be allowed or appropriate. How on earth is a person living on benefits—living on the breadline—supposed to be able to afford to pay a private company to record their assessment?
	The Minister’s predecessor also stated in that debate that additional audio recording machines had been ordered for work capability assessments. I hope that the Minister can today update the House on the progress made on that and on whether visual recording equipment is being purchased for that purpose. I would also like clarification on the right of the claimant to request a recording. If claimants have that right, will the Minister make it clear whether Atos is obliged to provide a recording? Will Atos reschedule an assessment date if the person concerned is told that equipment is not available on the original date? In the event that a claimant refused to go through with an assessment without a recording, would they be sanctioned in terms of their benefits?
	This is an important issue to raise in the House today. Not only does it affect those going through the assessments directly, but there is a huge cost for the taxpayer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who has brought this matter to the House today, illustrated in his speech. This process has cost £60 million in the last tax year, which is more than half the original cost of the contract with Atos to perform the work capability assessments.

Robert Halfon: I supported the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) at the Backbench Business Committee and I congratulate him on securing this debate.
	Briefly, I want to make three points. Britain is rightly generous to its disabled people. That is a good thing and something that unites the whole House. That said, there have always been problems with Atos. As a major contractor, it has repeatedly failed to inspire confidence and needs shaking up. Thirdly, whatever the party politics,
	we must clear our minds of hyperbole and focus on the evidence and the facts. People are always fearful of change. Whatever our differences on this issue, we must focus on the politics of fairness, not the politics of fear. It was suggested in the other place that disabled people were facing “ghettoisation”. I think that is a trivialisation of the real evil of the holocaust, which is why I say that how we use our language and the facts that we set out are so important.

Debbie Abrahams: Like many Members here today, I feel very strongly about this issue on behalf of the hundreds of constituents who have come to see me with heart-rending cases and told me about the dehumanising process that they have been put through. Why does the hon. Gentleman think the Department for Work and Pensions and Atos have been unable to accept the recommendations of the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges for more specific diagnostic tests that would make the assessments more appropriate?

Robert Halfon: I am here today because I care about this issue as much as the hon. Lady does. The fact remains, however, that it was the previous Government who signed the contract with Atos that led to all the problems and started the work capability assessment. This Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the Harrington review.
	The disability living allowance was first introduced by John Major’s Conservative Government in 1992 as a way of helping people with the cost of their care and mobility needs. It is partly because of that reform that we now spend £50 billion a year on support for disabled people, which is one fifth higher than the EU average. I am glad that the coalition has rapidly expanded the access to work budgets, helping more than 30,000 people to retain and enter work. By this April, the disabled worker element of the working tax credit will have risen by £285 a year since the Secretary of State started in his job in 2010. The element for the severely disabled will have risen by an extra £125 a year on top of that. The Minister has said before that Britain is acknowledged as a world leader in its support and care for disabled people, and that that is something we should all be proud of.
	I have initiated and signed early-day motions on these matters, and hon. Members will know that I have been an outspoken critic of the French multinational Atos in this House since November 2010, because of its treatment of a number of my constituents in Harlow, and I will go on to talk about that in a moment. I want to emphasise that this Government are expanding on what subsequent Labour Governments did after 1997.

Dave Watts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Halfon: I want to carry on for a moment.
	The Labour Government were right to introduce the work capability assessment in the last 18 months before the 2010 election. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), the shadow Minister for disabled people, was also right at the Labour conference to defend the idea of testing in the personal independence payment, when she said:
	“The principle of an arm’s-length assessment is not wrong.”
	Whatever party politics might be involved, there is consensus on the principles and on what our aims should be, and that is welcome.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the first contract with Atos was introduced by the previous Government, but why did the present Government renew and extend that contract even though they knew about all the problems that he and others have raised in the House?

Robert Halfon: This is where I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was very disturbed when Atos got the contract for the personal independence payments.

Kevan Jones: That happened under this Government.

Robert Halfon: Yes, that is what I am saying. The reasons that were given included the fact that the infrastructure was already in place, and the cost of changing the contractor.

Dave Watts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Halfon: I have given way twice; I need to carry on.
	As I have said, Atos has not covered itself in glory. It was the main contractor when the coalition came to power, but the problems are significant. For example, the Atos benefit assessment centre for my constituents in Harlow is in Romford, 20 miles away, and it has been a source of complaints and genuine disappointment to many. I have met Ministers several times to make these points and, to be fair, they have listened to and acknowledged them. I have also made a trip to an Atos centre in London to try to understand what occurs there.
	I welcome the changes that have been made by putting in place champions with expertise in mental, cognitive and intellectual conditions, but the objections from many Harlow people are not about the principle of testing, but about how it is done. We have to remember that whenever a disabled person goes for a test, that creates an enormous amount of fear inside them, because they worry that something that they rely on might be taken away. Their objections are simple ones, but the problems have massive implications for ordinary people.
	The problems include centres that are inaccessible, and a long distance away. It can be difficult to travel to them, and there might be no parking there. There are sometimes no rails on the walls. People might have to lose a whole day’s earnings to attend, or use up a day’s annual leave. Some centres are on the second floor, with no proper lift. The testing centres can be hard for people in wheelchairs to get into. Some of my constituents tell me that they have been tested by doctors who do not even speak English properly. All of that is totally unacceptable, especially when people are going to those centres in fear and apprehension that that their benefit will be taken away.
	I accept that, because of the contractual history, it is difficult to unwind the arrangement. What matters, however, is that we should learn lessons from what has happened to people who have been tested by Atos and use that information for the future. It is essential that those people who are tested for the new personal
	independence payment should go to a local centre and not have to travel far. I can understand why people should not be tested by their own doctor, but I do not understand why they cannot go to another surgery in their area to be tested. It is unacceptable that they have to travel so far, as those journeys take up an enormous amount of time. I urge the Government to look at radical localisation, and to consider the use of spare rooms in local buildings, including jobcentres.
	The people who bring their complaints to me do not have an axe to grind. They just expect a public service to be as good and professional as the private sector. Given the experience of my constituents, it seems that the system that Atos has set up is still not good enough.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches is now five minutes.

Madeleine Moon: My caseworker, like those of many Members, is inundated with cases that are tragic and heart-rending. The telephone line to my office is often clogged with crying people. They often ring several times a day, as they are unable to cope with the stress that they are facing. Many have mental health problems, and are unable to cope with the paperwork. They are unsure what to do with it, and they ring me to ask for help in the most tragic and personal way.

Meg Hillier: My hon. Friend raises the issue of people with mental health problems. Does she agree that that is an area of great concern, along with other conditions that can fluctuate, such as HIV and AIDS? Such conditions are difficult to assess in a 15-minute interview. Does she also agree that it is the framework of the assessment that is at fault, and that Atos might have something to answer for as well?

Madeleine Moon: It is absolutely clear that the framework of the assessment is unable to clarify realistically whether someone is able to work. The assessment is not valid for the purpose for which it was set up, unless that purpose was deliberately to deny people access to benefits.

Kevin Brennan: The head of Atos was recruited from Unum in the United States. Is it not disturbing that the lieutenant governor of California has stated that Unum was operating “claims denial factories” for working men’s compensation? Does not that disturb my hon. Friend?

Madeleine Moon: It disturbs me a great deal. Quite honestly, the lieutenant governor was right to say that, because that is what we have found in this country too.
	I want briefly to describe some of the cases that I have been dealing with. I shall start with 53-year-old Mrs E, who was employed as an accounts officer. She was a very able and capable woman. She suffered a vicious sexual attack, and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Her health problems caused her difficulties with working, and she was forced to take redundancy. She started claiming employment and support
	allowance, and attended her Atos assessment. The doctor who saw her is well known to me. I have received many complaints about him. I regularly receive complaints about his rudeness, arrogance and total lack of compassion towards the people whom he is assessing. He made unprofessional remarks to Mrs E, and bluntly told her carer to shut up, saying that he did not want to hear from him.
	An official complaint was made, but Mrs E was found fit for work. An appeal judge overturned the decision maker’s decision and she was placed in the support group. Three months later, she faced another Atos medical, and it was decided that she would be fit for work in six months. She was then placed in the work-related activity group. A month later, because of the stress, her mental and physical condition had deteriorated, and medical advisers told her to apply for disability living allowance. DLA was refused because of the original Atos report. When it was pointed out that the report was negative, but had been overturned on appeal, a reconsideration was requested. The DWP insisted that the information from the first Atos assessment was sound and that the only option was to appeal to the first-tier tribunal.
	My constituent then faced two tribunals. We should remember that this is a lady with post-traumatic stress disorder. She faced two appeals. The first was for DLA. The decision to award the lower rate for mobility and care was backdated. Since then, another DLA application has raised the mobility and care components to the higher rate. The second appeal tribunal was for the employment and support allowance. She was placed in a support group and her benefit was backdated.
	That was not the end of this lady’s trauma. Her mental health had deteriorated to the extent that she attempted to take her own life. Her carer has to remain constantly vigilant. A few months later, she received a letter saying she had been transferred back to the ESA work-related activity group from the support group. Payment for the ESA support component was stopped. Following some investigation, the DWP apologised and said that that was a random “administrative error”, but it affected the lady very badly and her mental state became even more fragile.
	Despite that, incredibly, on Christmas eve last year the same “administrative error” occurred. My office was contacted, and I have to say that we were extremely angry. The additional stress was placing this lady in a suicidal position again. The application process started again, and yet again there has been an apology for an “administrative error”. This lady is being hounded by the state: there is no other way of describing it. There is no excuse for this behaviour. This is a company that is not playing fair by this country’s most vulnerable people.

Nicholas Dakin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Madeleine Moon: I am afraid I cannot; I have only a short time.
	Atos received £112.8 million in 2010-11 for its DWP services. About 60% of all claims are judged fit to work; 41% of those people appeal, and 38% of those appeals are successful. Last year, appeals cost £54 million.
	How can that be seen as value for money? How can this be seen as evidence of a supportive and caring Government in action?
	Here are my questions to the Minister. We are told that specific support staff for mental health will be provided. Are they in place? Are they aware of the trauma of post-traumatic stress disorder? Is sensitivity training available, because it has certainly not been made available to the ex-GP who works as an Atos assessor in my area? Has the DWP looked at the cost—to Members, to citizens advice bureaux and to welfare rights organisations—of fighting this iniquitous system?

Annette Brooke: I rise to make just a few comments, particularly on fluctuating conditions. I have received many representations from people with mental health conditions, as have other Members. Some of the individual cases and stories that sometimes come from mothers with adult daughters about what has happened during the assessment process have been absolutely heartbreaking.
	Let me read out a few comments from one of my constituents, who says:
	“I do not believe that the WCA is working for people with mental health problems. Too many people are found fit for work when they are not, and are becoming trapped in a distressing and expensive cycle of appeals and reassessments. Too much of the decision making is inaccurate and too often the WCA and related processes worsen people’s mental health.”

Dave Watts: Does the hon. Lady agree that, given that everyone in the House knows that Atos is not fit for purpose and given that we know the Government have taken no action on it, we can believe only that the Government are supporting Atos as long as lots of people are getting signed off and put back into work?

Annette Brooke: I think we are here today to point out that there certainly are problems, and I await to hear the Minister’s response to them. We need to remember that a great deal of improvements to the system have been made since the Labour Government set it up in the first place. That does not mean, however, that the situation cannot be improved. I think it is right and proper for us to point out where we feel improvements should be made.

Margot James: I have visited my local Atos and have sat in on an appeal at the local tribunal, but I do not share the universal condemnation of Atos that I have heard in this House. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that Professor Harrington reviewed the system three times with particular reference to mental health and that he concluded that the improvements were starting to have an impact so that, in his view, no fundamental reforms were needed to the current work capability assessment?

Annette Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and reiterate that it was a positive move by the coalition to ask Professor Harrington to do this work.
	I would like to refer briefly to the issue of ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis. I understand that although the discussions on ME were very productive, the changes
	that we all want are not coming through individually. What we are looking for today is a means of unlocking some of the frictions that are causing the individual problems.
	I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ME, so I have obviously received many representations on this matter. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a survey on the work capability assessment carried out by the charity, Action for ME. It had 203 responses. I commend the report to the Minister and hope he will read all the conclusions. I shall refer only to several of them as I do not want to take up too much time.
	The conclusions included one to the effect that
	“all face-to-face interviewees should be automatically given a copy of the Atos medical report”,
	which I understand is not always happening. That is an area where the Minister could intervene to make sure that it does happen. Another conclusion was that
	“more efficient communication is needed between the DWP and Atos”—
	and that is almost certainly true. I believe we can have a positive and constructive debate when we look at those sorts of points. One further conclusion was:
	“Atos healthcare professionals who carry out the face-to-face assessment should receive specialist training about fluctuating conditions, developed in consultation with organisations that support people with M.E. Training needs to be as frequent as the staff turnover at Atos requires”.
	Those are really important points to which I would like the Minister to pay some attention.
	We had a meeting in the House this week, but it was not possible to get a Minister to attend it. I would like to request that the offices of the all-party group be used for a meeting to talk about ME, the work capability assessment and fears about the personal independence payment in the future.

Valerie Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) for initiating the debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it.
	We are all here today because constituents have come to us and told us their stories. Constituents have come to me in their wheelchairs with their carers because they have wanted me to know about the difficulties that they are experiencing. They cannot understand why, in the face of overwhelming medical evidence, they are still being called in for interviews. Some cannot understand why they have been told “If you make it to this interview, you must be fit for work.”

Nia Griffith: Does my hon. Friend share my utter despair at the sheer amount of money that is wasted on calling in people whose well-documented histories clearly show that they suffer from conditions which, sadly, will not improve in any way, rather than being spent on trying to find ways of helping those who are in a better position to go back to work?

Valerie Vaz: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	My constituents cannot understand why, although 40% of appeals are upheld, the Minister’s predecessor said that the system works. When I asked him, in a written question, how many people in Walsall South had been declared “not fit to work”, his response was:
	“Please note that constituency information on the work capability assessment process is not available.”
	It is no wonder that the Government have no idea why my constituents are suffering, but I will tell them now.
	SD has cancer and is undergoing radiotherapy; she has been declared fit for work. SH suffered seven strokes, and also suffers from type 2 diabetes and a liver condition; she has had to appeal against a decision. KH was placed in a work-related group; she has incontinence of bowel and bladder as well as diabetes, and is partially sighted. CS has received zero points despite having a spinal disc prolapse. SA suffered a stroke and is blind, but has still been declared fit for work. LM has arthritis of the spine, and has had to appeal against a decision. Stephen Nye was so angry that he came to see me on behalf of his father, and said “I want to let you know what is going on. Sick people are being persecuted: the assessment system is flawed, and they are being harassed by the jobcentre.”

Meg Hillier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tenor of the debate about “strivers and skivers” says a great deal about what the DWP intended when it set up the assessment system—as do my sheaf of papers relating to constituency cases and the list of cases that she is reading out?

Valerie Vaz: I entirely agree, and I do not subscribe to the “strivers and shirkers” nomenclature.
	MD came to see me with her husband, who is blind and deaf. They told me that the work capability assessment did not take account of the issues faced by blind and partially sighted people. I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor, who replied that Professor Harrington had had considerable engagement with the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Sense, and Action on Hearing Loss. However, that was only at the time of the professor’s third review—it should have happened before the assessments had even been devised—and only at the time of his second review did he suggest the introduction of sensory descriptors and an additional descriptor addressing the impact of generalised pain and/or fatigue.
	I am pleased to say that, at their annual conference, GPs called for the scrapping of the computer-based work capability assessment. They should know: they make the medical assessments every day, and they see the sick and the vulnerable every day. There is no common sense in these assessments, and there is no humanity or dignity for the most vulnerable members of society. I urge the Minister to listen to those who have to undergo these assessments, and to instruct Atos to start again.

Jeremy Lefroy: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on enabling it to take place. I am pleased that the Minister is present, because I entirely agree with his statement last year that there must be
	“continuous improvements to the process to get the right outcomes for claimants”.—[Official Report, 5 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 136WH.]
	I want to mention a few improvements that I should like to see implemented immediately—I am glad that the Minister is listening to this—all of which were brought to my attention by constituents. The first relates to the frequency of recall for people with long-term medical conditions. Last year the Minister wrote to me:
	“A claimant for whom a return to work is considered unlikely within two years will be reassessed after two years.”
	I want to be sure that these decisions are being monitored, and that people are not being recalled more frequently even than the DWP has suggested.
	Secondly, as we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), there are cases in which people have had to wait for up to a year before winning appeals and then immediately face another work capability assessment, so the whole process starts again. Why cannot such people be given at least a considerable period of grace? Surely that would be possible.

Andrew Stunell: Would not speeding up the appeal process also relieve stress and bring about certainty much more quickly?

Jeremy Lefroy: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	Thirdly, there is a category of people who are being considered fit for work although they have had, for instance, a severe stroke or are awaiting a back operation. One constituent was told that if people could move an empty cardboard box, they could go to work. Do the health care professionals employed by Atos always take account of the fact that people have to get to work in the first place, or that, while they may be able to perform an action once, they may not be able to perform it repeatedly when it causes severe pain?

Charles Walker: Does my hon. Friend share my fear that the reputation of Atos may be so damaged that it can never really be effective? Perhaps the time has been reached when we need to park Atos and move on in a different direction.

Jeremy Lefroy: The Minister has definitely heard what my hon. Friend has said. I would only add that even if that is not the case, Atos is in the last chance saloon.
	Fourthly, as the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton pointed out in his excellent opening speech, there are people whose conditions fluctuate. They may be all right on one day, but completely incapable on the next. At least two of my constituents have made that point.
	Fifthly, there is the disregarding of expert medical opinion. I understand that there are marginal cases, but I have seen cases—as, I am sure, have all Members—that bear absolutely no relation to the WCA reports. Because I always make a point of visiting constituents at home if they have a problem with Atos, I see for myself that in some cases the reports bear no relation to the reality. I believe that appeal tribunals that overturn such reports should highlight blatant instances of that, because it clearly constitutes a misuse of public money when the reports are written so badly.
	Finally, there are people who are not considered fit for work—for instance, those who are awaiting operations with no idea of the time scale—and who are put into the work-related activity group although they cannot work. That strikes me as a contradiction in terms.

Nicholas Dakin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Lefroy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I am about to end my speech, and I know that others are waiting to speak.
	I know from past experience that the Minister certainly listens. I welcome his willingness to make those
	“continuous improvements to the process to get the right outcome for claimants”,
	and I urge him to do so.

Jonathan Edwards: Atos and the work capability assessment should be seen in the broader context of the UK Government’s assault on, and demonisation of, disabled people. We have seen first the reduction in the disability living allowance and then its replacement by the personal independence payment, about whose workability we have grave concerns.
	Many disabled people’s groups say that the reductions in benefits have had a catastrophic effect on recipients, and there have been a number of reports of suicides and untimely deaths brought on by immense distress. In my surgeries, I have heard several harrowing and very sad accounts from constituents who have been subjected to impersonal and inhumane work capability assessments by Atos. One has been diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumour, which cannot be completely removed because that would leave her paralysed. In August and September of last year she had radiotherapy to slow down the growth of the tumour, but in October she was told that it would grow back even more quickly, and that she would have to have further radiotherapy or she would die. I should add that this lady also has polyarthritis and asthma. Why has this lady been placed in the work-related activity group? Her doctors and consultants have specified that she should be placed in the support group as she is fighting for her life. Her only concern should be winning that battle.

Robert Halfon: The hon. Gentleman said the disability living allowance has been reduced. Can he explain that, because benefits went up by over 5% last year and are not subject to the 1% increase this year?

Jonathan Edwards: I was speaking about my constituents’ experiences, and I think I should concentrate on that in the limited time available to me.
	Another constituent contacted me who had been ill for two years and was eventually diagnosed with cancer following a serious bout of pneumonia. Prior to her illness, she had an unblemished employment record. She was certified as unable to work by her GP and had attended many DWP hearings about the employment and support allowance, with the final one being in April 2012. She won her tribunal hearing against the Atos decision. She had not received a single penny in state benefits from before April 2012 until she died at the end
	of November. She faced immense distress and was denied any financial assistance at a time when she was vulnerable and in desperate need of assistance.
	As with a lot of current UK Government policy, this is a matter of completing the job left by the last UK Government; it is another example of the Labour-Tory tag team in action. Labour introduced WCAs in 2008 and signed up Atos. As a Welsh nationalist and a socialist, I believe an independent Wales would choose a different path, where Governments do not offer contracts to private companies to make profits from inflicting misery and suffering on the most vulnerable people in our society. We would treat people who need support with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Dan Rogerson: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) for leading the effort to secure this debate. I was happy to accompany him and the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) when they appeared before the Backbench Business Committee, and I am grateful to the Committee for having found time, in what is a busy schedule, for a debate on this issue. It is of great concern to many Members and, more importantly, to those who have been assessed under the WCA system and those who work to support them and are inundating us with case studies.
	We have heard a lot about the history of this issue, so I will not rehearse what has been said on that. I am pleased that an annual review of the system is in place and that it is highlighting the concerns, which we are then able to address in this House. The coalition Government have moved to tackle some of the concerns, but they need to do more, such as by addressing the issues raised by Professor Harrington.
	I remember a case that arose during the last Parliament—when this system was introduced—involving a constituent of mine from one of the north-coast villages. He was told he had to attend an assessment, and printed information on how to travel to the assessment venue by public transport was sent to him. The suggested journey involved an overnight stay on a railway platform. It was hardly helpful to send such a suggestion to someone who was travelling to attend a WCA.
	We have moved on a little since then. As we have heard, however, people attending WCAs are often nervous and fail to get across all the points they want to make, and they frequently feel that, as a result of the process, they are railroaded into responding in a certain way. As we heard from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), the people who accompany them are sometimes shut out of the process, too, even though they can perform the valuable role of giving their companion the confidence to represent themselves thoroughly.
	The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) raised the important point that the process is recorded. As we all know, telephone calls to many organisations are routinely recorded and people, including those undergoing WCAs, should realise that the recording of proceedings is for their benefit as well as that of the organisation concerned. Those undergoing WCAs can get a copy of that recording, too. That point was raised with me by a woman whose son had to wait for seven months to get his assessment, which serves to highlight
	that we must also speed up the process. Work needs to be done to help Atos understand the problems that might be leading to those delays.

Sarah Newton: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must make Atos understand that in remote rural constituencies such as those we both represent some people have to travel long distances? That problem is leading to a lot of no-shows at the Truro Atos centre, which in turn is leading to lots of delays in assessments, thereby causing a great deal of anxiety.

Dan Rogerson: That is also a common problem in respect of visiting district general hospitals. I have repeatedly asked hospitals to make sure that people travelling long distances are seen in the middle of the day, rather than early in the morning. Sensible decisions like that would help.
	A constituent who would rather I did not reveal her name also raised the issues of delays and recordings, and others have mentioned the lack of expertise. If Atos has practitioners with different areas of expertise—some in physical disability, others in mental health issues, for instance—it should arrange assessments in such a way as to utilise that.
	The language that is used and how people are treated are also important issues—some Members of this House could probably moderate the language they use in discussing this subject.

Ian Lavery: We are, in effect, trying to put a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. Atos and the WCA are not fit for purpose. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should bin them both, and start again with the idea of looking after disabled people, rather than the opposite?

Dan Rogerson: The problem with that suggestion is that all the people who have been through the process and have won appeals will have to go back to square one. I am therefore in favour of improving the current system. Every time we renew a system, we go back to square one. Those who have been through an assessment and an appeal and have finally got the right result should not be sent back to square one. The hon. Gentleman articulates the anger that is felt, and there are clearly problems with the process, but I do not think scrapping it and going back to square one is the best way to proceed. Professor Harrington has not suggested that course of action, either. What he has said is that there are problems that need to be resolved.

Guto Bebb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dan Rogerson: No, I want to conclude so that others can have a chance to speak.
	There are certainly questions to be asked about the company operating this process. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said it was drinking in the last-chance saloon. We have heard in other contexts that people can remain in that saloon for a long time, however, and this debate serves to show the Government that we are taking this issue very seriously.
	There is another issue, too. Those who are found capable of work even after an appeal should be supported into work. We must do that properly. I hope we will address that issue on another day, as it is the second part of this process and there are problems to be solved.

Iain McKenzie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this important debate. There is a huge groundswell of discontent about Atos and the work capability assessment. It is deplorable that our sick and disabled constituents are experiencing immense hardship after being deprived of benefits having endured an Atos WCA. We all recall last year’s television programmes exposing the way people are treated across the country by Atos, and I have heard from a number of my constituents who have been badly treated—treated without care, compassion or understanding.

Ian Mearns: I am sure that, as a Scot, my hon. Friend will share my concern about the fact that Atos will now be carrying out the personal independence payment assessments as well. The Government have already determined the outcome of those assessments. The Minister for disabled people, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), told this House that by October 2015 560,000 claimants will have had their assessments, and 160,000 will get a reduced award, 170,000 will get no award, and 230,000 will get the same support. How can we know the assessments are valid when we have had such a prediction?

Iain McKenzie: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. The accuracy of assessments is essential, as I will go on to discuss later.
	Let me outline briefly some of the cases that have been brought to my surgeries, on the back of a recurring issue now being referred to by my constituents as the “Lazarus letter”. This is a letter they receive instructing them to make their way to Glasgow for assessment and containing many connotations about what will befall their benefits. A constituent who suffers from severe cerebral palsy and could not travel was refused a home visit and told to go to Glasgow to be tested. Another constituent who was recovering after being seriously injured in an accident was advised to attend an Atos assessment in Glasgow. Both those constituents could not possibly travel because they were in so much pain, and I had to get involved and ask for a home assessment for them. It does not end there because they then had their benefits cut or stopped because Atos sent the assessment forms to the wrong address. If it cannot get the address right, what chance does it have with assessments?
	Clearly many of my constituents have not been treated with the fairness and decency they deserve. Although I realise that we need to see whether people can work, we need a system that is humane and fair, not one that causes fear and loathing. It is time the Government realised that they are driving many sick and disabled people into poverty. What does the Minister think of Citizens Advice’s detailed year-long study “Right first time?” on the controversial work capability assessment run by Atos, which has revealed evidence of widespread inaccuracies in the medical reports that help to determine
	whether individuals are eligible for sickness benefits? Citizens Advice also tracked a group of people through the process of claiming employment and support allowance and looked at how their claims were handled. The report’s conclusions are stark: 37 individuals were tracked and had their reports examined, with serious levels of inaccuracy revealed in up to 43% of the reports. That level is significant enough to have an impact on the claimant’s eligibility for benefits—surely our sick and disabled deserve better than this.
	The low rate of accuracy is worrying because the reports are used in deciding entitlement to other benefits. Is it not better to have an accurate, fair and just system of medical assessment, one that claimants know will treat them fairly and with the humanity they deserve, rather than a system that is, frankly, unfit for purpose and that uses a company, Atos, that instils fear and loathing in people, resulting in a system where people are continually appealing against decisions? We have already heard that the success rate against the decisions is about 60%.

Pamela Nash: Although the Department has made much of the fact that Atos does not actually make the decisions, with that being done by decision makers in the job centres, I have never seen evidence of the decision makers taking account of any evidence apart from the Atos assessment and the questionnaire, unless the case goes through appeal or reconsideration. Does my hon. Friend agree that decision makers should in every assessment be seeking the opinion of the person’s GP and of other professionals who are offering the person care at that time?

Iain McKenzie: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. It is ridiculous to have people making an assessment based on a tick-list that looks like it should be used for an MOT on a car.
	We need to ensure that the people who are going through the system are treated well, justly and fairly. The British Medical Association has called for the work capability assessment to end immediately and be replaced with a system that does not cause harm to some of the most vulnerable people in society. I call on the Government to change course and look again at this process.

Bob Blackman: It is an honour to follow a thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie). It is fair to say that the mark of a civilised society is how it treats the most vulnerable people who live within it, so it is important that we have this type of debate in order to review how we are treating vulnerable people. I add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing the debate and to the other hon. Members who have contributed so far.
	In 2006, I was serving on the Greater London assembly and we carried out a report and review on the huge number of people consigned to permanent disability—they were written off by the previous Government as not being capable of working. The one key issue is the sensitivity in determining whether someone is capable of work and therefore should be employed or seeking employment, or is clearly not able to work and is therefore in need of the maximum support.

Sheila Gilmore: It is important that we acknowledge that we now have to look at how this test is working. After all, it is not good enough for us just to trade insults and say that the previous Government left people to rot, because the system was actually introduced by the previous Tory Government. We could therefore pass these comments backwards and forwards, but the important thing is to ensure that if we are going to test people, we get it right.

Bob Blackman: I share that view, and I was coming on to discuss some of the issues raised in my constituency about the tests and some reforms that we could reasonably request the Minister and Atos to implement.
	My constituency has a relatively low unemployment rate, but I have received a succession of complaints from constituents who have been put through the work capability assessments and clearly believe they have been treated unfairly—I agree with many of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) described how he visited his constituents at home, and I have had a similar opportunity to visit some of my constituents at home to see the position they are in and the lives they lead. These people are and should be entitled to full disability benefits, yet they have been denied them.
	I want to discuss one specific example, that of a constituent who came to see me in late 2011 to make a complaint against her employer. She suffered from a degenerative spinal condition and struggled to stand for long periods of time. She had asked her employer to split her two eight-hour shifts into three four-hour shifts so that she would be able to continue to work. After some discussion, her employer eventually consented to changing her shift pattern. The point is that this woman was committed to work for as long possible and in a job that she could clearly do. After receiving higher rate mobility allowance and lower rate care allowance for several years, my constituent had her claim reviewed as part of these reforms. Following an Atos work capability test, all her benefits were suspended and she spent the following year appealing the decision. She got full support from me and my office, and I am delighted to say that after the appeal process and a successful tribunal she had her benefits fully restored. Of course, the pain and suffering for a full year was outrageous.
	It is worth pointing out some of the medical conditions from which my constituent suffered. She has had a disc removed from her spine, and I understand that its removal caused a mid-posterior annular tear. Those conditions have brought a lifetime of mobility problems and associated side effects, amounting to a debilitating spinal injury. When we add that information to my previous comments about her keenness to work, we see that this is not someone who seeks fraudulently to claim benefits; she seeks only what she is entitled to. At the original work capability assessment my constituent was assessed by a physiotherapist. I have no doubt that the physiotherapist was reputable and qualified, but as an assessor they were clearly not sufficiently qualified to understand the complex medical needs of my constituent. Having had the opportunity to review some of the cases brought to me, I can say that it is clear that Atos and its employees do not have the required expertise.

Ian Lavery: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have a situation where the likes of physiotherapists are assessing people with acute mental health problems. Does he agree that that is wholly unacceptable?

Bob Blackman: I agree. One reform we could quite reasonably ask the Minister and Atos to introduce would involve ensuring that the assessor was qualified to assess the type of problem from which the individual suffers. That could take the form of a referral by the Atos assessor to a proper medical professional in a given field where there was expertise. That would save the individuals from the trauma of the appeals process and would save money as it would mean that the medical professionals could properly undertake an appropriate assessment. I urge the Minister to consider that as a way of improving the system.
	It appears to me that there is a tick-box mentality among the Atos assessors. I could refer to a stream of cases in which people have conditions that come and go and have good days and bad days. When Atos assessors make the assessments, those people can often be having a good day and the tick boxes do not allow the right decision to be made.

Meg Hillier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Blackman: I will not, because I have given way twice and I want to conclude.
	The clear point is that there needs to be a fundamental reform of the process. It is right that we should assess people to see whether they are capable of work, but the people subjected to horrendous trials and tribulations as a result need further support and deserve to have the whole process reconsidered so that it can be improved for the benefit of all.

Austin Mitchell: The number of MPs who want to speak today and the passion that has been shown are testimony to the fact that the system has not worked, is not working and ought to be scrapped. I hope that the Minister is listening, because that is clearly a strong concern on both sides of the House.
	The key weakness of the system is the perfunctory, mechanical, inhuman and rushed process of assessment. I have to point out to the Minister that as the system has been handed to the private sector, the more perfunctory the process of assessment, the greater the profit made by Atos and the assessors.

Meg Hillier: Other Members have raised the issue that Atos is a private company. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be helpful if the Minister could reveal the profit margin, as this is public money being spent by a private company, which one would expect to make a profit. Would it not also be useful if the Minister could tell us whether there has been any change in the profit in the years for which Atos has been doing the assessments?

Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. That was one of my concerns as a member of the Public Accounts Committee and it was to have been part of my passionate penultimate ringing
	declaration when I intended to ask the Government to tell us how much profit has been made, but I can now omit that from my speech.
	The system is perfunctory and totally inadequate. I will not repeat the cases that have come to my surgery after the assessment—that has been done brilliantly by some of my colleagues—but it is clear that the assessment fails patients with mental health conditions, particularly schizophrenia, which are very difficult to assess and treat. It fails when conditions are intermittent and emerge one day only to fade away the next. It fails on degenerative conditions, too. The system of assessment does not take into account any of its own inadequacies in those areas.
	In the Public Accounts Committee, I was able to voice a suspicion that there was a quota for the number of disabled people that should be shaken out in what appears to be an enormous attempt to do that rather than to provide them with the support and help that they need and with encouragement to go back to work. The process is more concerned with shaking them off benefit than with treating their cases properly. We were assured by Atos and the Department that there was no quota, but I think we can guarantee that any medical assessor for Atos who finds that the total or a high proportion of the number of people he is examining are not fit for work will not advance his career in assessment, his career in Atos or his contact with the Department. Inevitably, there are those pressures on the assessors.
	As our Committee was told, 38% of the cases that go to appeal—I advise all my cases to go to appeal—are successful in reversing the verdict. That demonstrates its inadequacy and the enormous cost in the reassessment process at appeal, a cost that is not taken into account in the Government’s estimates of the savings produced by the system. Those reassessments are usually done with the help of the patient’s own doctor, so I do not see why their doctor’s view cannot be invoked and used at an earlier stage in the process. After all, the Government are giving more power to the doctors and claiming that they represent the patients. The doctors know the long-term conditions—they are treating the patient—so why are their views not taken into account by Atos at the start?
	Our PAC report on the system was pretty damning—one of the most damning we have done. Our concerns included the rate of profit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has mentioned. The Minister should tell us the rate of profit made by Atos and what efforts the Department is making to reduce that and to ensure a more efficient service and more efficient assessment processes. We were concerned, too, that this is a monopoly contract with no great risk to Atos. The monopoly is continuously reinstated and Atos is put back in power. Monopoly processes go slack, and if such tasks are going to go to the private sector—I do not think that they should—the companies should be subject to competition and to more regular reviews. The weakness of the assessment system shows that Atos is not working effectively. There should not be a long-term monopoly in this area.
	If the Minister reads Twitter at all, as I do avidly—normally to see people abuse me—he will see the widespread concerns about people’s treatment by Atos. If he listens to this debate, he will hear the same. If he listens to the disablement groups, he will hear the same. Instead of backing an inhumane system and refusing to change it
	or tighten the terms and conditions under which Atos operates, it is time that the Minister showed some concern and changed the system.

Guto Bebb: I was not expecting to be called to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I shall say a few words.
	The debate has been very valuable and there has been cross-party consensus, which shows that there is a great deal of concern about how Atos is performing against its contract. That is not to say that all the language used today is acceptable, and I feel that some of the constructive changes that have been implemented have been ignored. For example, when I was on the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, one of the key issues of concern for me was how the work capability assessments would deal with cancer patients. It is a fact that more cancer patients now qualify for unconditional support than ever before, yet we have had no mention of that. In the midst of making constructive and, in many cases, justified criticisms of Atos, it is important that Members are careful not to frighten people listening to this debate who might be cancer patients and might feel that they have no hope whatever of a fair hearing from Atos. I also want to highlight the fact that more people—double the number from two years ago—now qualify for unconditional support.
	Those two points—about cancer patients and the number of people getting unconditional support—are important reasons why the proposal made by some Opposition Members that we should simply throw the whole system out and start again is dangerous. It does not take into account some of the constructive changes that have been implemented.

Sheila Gilmore: I do not deny that there have been some improvements—although one speaker said that they had happened at a glacial pace, which was probably a fair comment—but we must bear it in mind that the unconditional support is not available without the person being re-subjected to an assessment. One complaint is about the frequency of reassessment, even for people whose conditions are so serious that they have been put in the support group but who sometimes, a year later, still have to come back and go through the whole process again.

Guto Bebb: The hon. Lady’s point is important, because although we all subscribe to the principle of a review, when a condition has been assessed as demanding unconditional long-term support there is a question about whether an annual review is justified. That is an issue that a constituency MP who takes case work seriously would not ignore, so I take her point on board.
	There are a couple of aspects that I welcome, but about which I still have concerns. One is the way in which the system deals with patients who suffer from mental health problems. Mental health services are often the Cinderella service of the NHS, but when it comes to people who have difficulty accessing work and feeling confident to do so, the way that Atos deals with such patients has been less than acceptable. I understand that the Department and Atos are putting in 60 champions, but given the number of issues that I have seen in my own constituency, I question whether 60 will be sufficient
	for the whole of the United Kingdom. The way in which we deal with people with mental health problems is not acceptable in the health service and it is not acceptable at this point in time in Atos, even though the problem has been recognised and work is being done to try to deal with it.
	The other matter, which has been touched on by several hon. Members, is the issue of people with chronic long-term illnesses. The problem that I have seen in my constituency surgeries is that quite often somebody may turn up at an assessment centre and on that particular day would be capable of a certain type of work, but the situation could be completely different the following day. The problem with the system that we have put together is that it does not take into account those long-term chronic conditions that could result in somebody occasionally being able to take on work, but not on a long-term basis. That is another weakness in the system.

Meg Hillier: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people with HIV/AIDS, where the side-effects can cause many day-to-day problems, are not properly assessed in the work capability assessment?

Guto Bebb: I entirely accept that point. The same is applicable to cancer patients, for example. However, there is a counter-argument that often people who suffer from HIV/AIDS or who are dealing with cancer would enjoy the opportunity of working. My father, who passed away owing to lung cancer, was working until three weeks before he died, and there is no doubt that being able to work for such a long period was a contributory factor to the way in which he fought the disease. We need to make sure that we do not categorise everybody who has a long-term chronic illness as incapable of any type of work.
	On a specifically Welsh issue, despite the promises made by Ministers in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee when I tabled an amendment to allow assessments through the medium of Welsh, I have encountered numerous examples where assessments have been requested through the medium of Welsh but that service has not been provided. An excellent example was that of a young woman in my constituency who had a stroke at the age of 42, I believe. As a result, she largely lost the ability to communicate through the medium of English. Despite numerous requests for the service to be provided in accordance with the promises made by the Department, as yet we have not been able to ensure that she has that service through the medium of Welsh, which is her right under the Welsh Language Act 1993.
	I subscribe to the general views expressed in the debate that the system is not performing as it should and that there are real concerns about the way that Atos is performing. However, I believe that what the Government are trying to do is right, as it is important that we recognise that we have a higher number of long-term unemployed in the United Kingdom than any comparable western state in Europe, and we need to question why that is so.
	I do not think it is necessarily wrong, harsh or unreasonable to say that people who could work should be supported into work, but we need to do that in a way which recognises the dignity of individuals going through the system. Despite my support for the welfare changes that this Government are making, the examples that
	I have seen in my own constituency surgery leave a lot to be desired. We should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, but we need to make sure that the recommendations that have been made time after time are implemented as soon as possible. We owe that to the constituents we represent.

Eilidh Whiteford: Today we have heard a litany of problems with the work capability assessment, not least the problem that it persistently reaches the wrong outcomes in assessing people’s ability to work.
	Aberdeenshire was part of the pilot scheme for the work capability assessment, so ever since I was elected, I have faced a steady stream of sick and disabled constituents, distraught, worried and in some cases angry about the process that they have had to endure. These are not anecdotal or isolated instances. The citizens advice bureau has kept close track of the issues brought by clients over many years, and it has documented the sharp increase in demand for advice and help on matters related to work capability assessments. In the past year alone the Turriff citizens advice bureau in my constituency has seen a 60% increase in this type of case, on top of a sharp increase last year. I suspect that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.
	In spite of three reviews by Professor Harrington, the work capability assessment still is not working well enough. Too many decisions are being appealed, and 38% of those appeals are successful, rising to a 70% success rate when people are supported by the CAB and other advocacy groups. That system failure is costly not only in financial terms, but in human terms.
	One of the things that has disturbed me most over the past couple of years is the way in which disabled people have found the process an assault on their dignity. I am also disturbed by the failure of the Government to take remedial action and manage the contract with Atos more effectively. Public money is being spent on these assessments. There is a substantial body of evidence to show that they are failing to deliver, yet the Government continue to hide behind commercial confidentiality in declining to make public the details of their relationship with Atos. That lack of accountability is not good enough.
	As an MP, I am dealing with increasing numbers of constituents who are distressed and desperate because they have been told that they are fit for work when they manifestly are not. The very first constituent who came to me for help and who had been found fit for work was a man who could not climb the stairs in his own house to go to the toilet. He came to one of my surgeries which had disabled access, but he needed help from relatives to do so and it was quite an ordeal. His GP rather euphemistically told me that the man had “a poor prognosis”, and the man has absolutely no prospect of getting back into the labour market. He successfully appealed against the decision, but it emerged in that process that no account had been taken of his GP’s documentation or of the evidence supplied by his hospital consultant.
	I have encountered incontinent patients being asked to make four-hour round trips on public transport. I have also encountered constituents who have had to
	make very long journeys by public transport only to find that their appointment is not double-booked, but triple-booked. My biggest ongoing worry, though, is about people who have found themselves placed in the work-related activity group with very little realistic prospect of finding a job. I think of one constituent, disabled since birth, who has wanted nothing more than a job since she left her special school. Now in her 30s, she has been on endless training courses. She has enthusiastically embraced work placements but she has never had a mainstream job, despite her efforts. Possibly, she could work, with the right support in place.
	In Aberdeenshire we enjoy levels of employment much higher than the average. It is probably easier to find a job there than anywhere else in Scotland, but jobs still do not grow on trees. Many of the jobs that new entrants to the labour market might have a chance of getting are physically demanding. They require strength, dexterity, co-ordination and a degree of endurance. My constituent could not stand on a food production line. She does not have the balance or the motor skills to work in a retail outlet. Her speech impairment would make telecommunications work difficult. She can type, but not nearly fast enough for a modern office. She will lose her benefit in a few months, even though she has always sought work, and is just looking for someone to give her a chance.
	I worry that, instead of becoming independent, my constituent is going to become even more dependent on her ageing parents, who are themselves in failing health. They are not a wealthy family. Bringing up a disabled child often impairs a family’s wealth and erodes their assets and their ability to cope with setbacks. I am worried about the impact of increased caring on her family and on their health and financial well-being.
	Finally, I want to say a quick word about the situation facing people with serious mental health problems and long-term fluctuating conditions. There is a world of difference between being potentially fit for work, given the right support, and being an attractive prospect to a potential employer. The elephant in the Chamber today is the fact that many employers will think very long and hard before taking on a member of staff with a serious long-term or fluctuating health condition. Anyone with a chequered work history knows that they are perceived as a risk to prospective employers. Many employers will admit this in private but will not come out and say it publicly. I do not think the Government are being realistic enough about the stigma attached, for example, to degenerative conditions or mental illness. These hurdles are not insurmountable, but we must admit that they exist if we are to challenge them. I hope that today’s debate will inject a dose of realism into the Government and that they will stop hounding and persecuting disabled and sick people for their disabilities.

Heather Wheeler: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate, owing to another commitment. Mr Speaker kindly put my name towards the end of the list for today’s speeches.
	Interestingly, the scheme has worked relatively well in South Derbyshire. We have quite a high level of returners-to-work as a result, but equally, issues have come to my
	surgery and I have had occasion to write to the Minister and his predecessor. I welcome the Backbench Business Committee’s decision to hold the debate.
	I have had conversations not only with my local citizens advice bureau but my jobcentre, which has highlighted a few points that I hope the Minister will take on board. I hope that he will answer them in his winding-up speech. I heard about a number of harrowing cases—not from the CAB, interestingly, but from the jobcentre, whose staff see people coming back into training and what have you after the assessment. Those staff are incredulous at times at the cavalier approach of Atos to people’s health conditions.
	Long-term disabled people have come back into the work arena; unbelievably, within three months of being told that they are perfectly fit for work, they have dropped down dead. I would not like that on my conscience, and I find it surprising. I am sure that such cases are relatively rare, but when do they happen? If the Minister does not know the answer, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me.
	Does anybody go back through the files to check on what happened with Atos? There needs to be a review. Folk in the Chamber know that I used to be the leader of a district council. Our job was to put out contracts and make procurements, but we always had penalty clauses, clawback arrangements and the ultimate option of getting rid of a firm if it was not performing.
	One of my early letters to a previous Minister asked about the point when we say that the system is not working; frankly, I have not had an adequate reply. When someone drops down dead within three months of being assessed as being perfectly capable of going back to work, what is the review process for Atos?
	We have heard about the Harrington report and the need for mental health champions. Only last week, a constituent, who, frankly, did not know what time of day it was, went through the process. Not only were they not allowed to have their carer with them, but no mental health champion was there.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but I do not think the hon. Lady understands the notion of mental health champions. They are not for the clients but to advise the health care professionals doing the assessment.

Heather Wheeler: I do get that point; I am saying that the champions ought to be there when the interviews are taking place. I find the juxtaposition astonishing—according to Professor Harrington’s report, people need that extra bit of care. I find it interesting that we have just heard that there will be 60 champions in the country. Patently obviously, that is not enough. Perhaps the Minister will advise us that that number represents a pilot and, notwithstanding what we are saying in this debate, it will be increased in short order.

Sheila Gilmore: In Scotland, there are mental health champions in only Edinburgh and Glasgow. This is not a pilot; the Minister has previously said that he has implemented Harrington as far as mental health champions are concerned.

Heather Wheeler: I am sure the Minister has heard every word that the hon. Lady said.
	I finish on two final points because time is short and many people want to speak. People have mentioned the tick-box nature of the interview; my constituents find it hugely frustrating that they cannot expand on an answer. After all this time, perhaps the interview process could be tweaked to allow that. My last point is about the absolute frustration of GPs and consultants who feel that no account whatever is taken of the fact that they take their time to write the letters. That is desperately frustrating and a huge waste of public money.

Mark Hoban: We do ask GPs and consultants to provide medical evidence; we send a form to them. Only 37% of those are returned in time.

Heather Wheeler: I thank the Minister for putting that on the record. I will gladly go back to my GPs and consultants and say that they will be taken into account if they please return the forms on time.
	I will finish now, because many hon. Members want to get in. I am delighted that we are having this debate because I genuinely feel that there is an opportunity to get the issue right. The people deserve it.

John McDonnell: Someone said that what we are debating is a party political issue. Let me be clear: I opposed the system when it was introduced by the last Government and I oppose it now—for the same reason. I see it as a brutal attack on the weakest and most vulnerable individuals in our society and an exercise by private companies to profiteer at those individuals’ expense.
	I started raising the issue in Parliament early on. My first constituency involvement was like that of many other hon. Members: it involved someone who was mentally ill, went for the assessment and had a nervous breakdown. That had an impact on the whole family—the mother, in particular.
	I was then contacted by a range of organisations, which came together and produced the Spartacus report. I urge Members to read it. In the last debate on this issue, in Westminster Hall, we read some of its case studies into the record. They are horrendous examples of human suffering and what can only be described as abuse by the system itself.
	I also refer Members to Calum’s List, which has a website. It is a list of people who have died, including by suicide, as a result of, or where there has been a contribution from, the loss of benefits. The first example on the list was that of Paul Reekie. Some Members may have known Paul, an award-winning writer and poet in Leith, Scotland. He did not leave a suicide note, just two letters on the table beside him. One was about his loss of housing benefit and the other was about his loss of incapacity benefit. He died.
	The other example is that of Mark and Helen Mullins from Bedworth. They could not access their benefits. They were walking 10 miles a day to a Salvation Army soup kitchen. They committed suicide together because they could not access their benefits. Read Calum’s List, which has example after example of the brutal effect of the system.
	This is at least the sixth debate that we have had on the issue. The concern expressed by Members about an issue of public administration in all those is unprecedented in recent decades. There is example after example of human suffering on a scale unacceptable in a civilised society. That is why 117 Members of Parliament have so far signed our early-day motion calling for the scrapping of the system.
	I have read Mind’s briefing for today’s debate and I urge other Members to do the same. It has put forward what is wrong with the system. Yes, it has recommended improvements, but one of the key factors coming out of its survey of people facing the work capability assessment process was that 51% of them said it made them have suicidal thoughts. Any system involving that level of risk is irretrievable and unreformable. That is why I believe it should be scrapped and why the British Medical Association has said it should be scrapped.
	I say the following, and I do not say it lightly: we now know that the system does not work. We know the human suffering that is occurring. The responsibility is now on us to do something about it. We will be to blame for every injury, harm, suicide and other death as a result of the system if we do not scrap it now and bring in something that is fair and based on proper medical knowledge—assessment by a person’s own GP, reinforced by expertise. We need something that gives advice and emotional support for people when they go through the system, not something that leaves them at risk.

Ian Lavery: rose—

John McDonnell: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall not give way as other hon. Members want to speak.
	I conclude by saying that we all have a responsibility to say, “Let’s end the system now, start again and make something fair.” We will be to blame for all the injury and harm if we do not.

Kevan Jones: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this important debate.
	The system is not working for those suffering from mental health conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has just mentioned the Mind survey. Some 87% of those surveyed said that the system caused distress and 75% said that it had worsened their mental health condition. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, 51% said that they had suicidal thoughts as a result of it.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton referred to the deaths of people who have been through the Atos system. Through a freedom of information request, I understand that the DWP keeps a figure for the number of people who have died but does not record the causes and how they died. It has been asked to record the suicide cases, for example, but has not done so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington eloquently demonstrated, there
	are a number of well-publicised cases where people have taken their own lives because of this system. It is not too putting it too strongly to say that this coalition Government have blood on their hands for the deaths of those individuals.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), a lot of constituents come to see me at my surgery about this, and I should like to give an example. I also referred to several cases in the mental health debate on 14 June. I suggest that people look at the Mental Health Matters website, which gives some very heart-rending examples of people in the north-east with mental health conditions. The individual I mentioned is a 59-year-old who suffers from severe schizophrenia. He failed the Atos interview and is now being told by the DWP that he should be retrained as a security guard because that was the last job he did 10 years ago. What a waste of resources. This is despite his GP writing a letter on his behalf, which I have seen. I know his GP, because he is my GP as well.
	Much has been made of the Harrington reviews, and we have heard a lot about the mental health champions, but they are there not to help applicants but to give advice to the health care practitioners. There are only 60 of them, and there are some 140 assessment centres throughout the country. Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind, who was on the scrutiny panel, resigned because the system was clearly failing people with mental health conditions. The Minister’s predecessor then tried to rubbish him by saying that he had been asked to resign because Mind had a conflict of interest in a legal case, but it did not. Mind is very clear that the system is failing.
	The system is also costing the taxpayer money, not only through the additional health care provision for those with mental health conditions but through the extra work load on GPs, the tribunal system, which is at breaking point, and the reassessment system. The other week a 60-year-old nurse with osteoporosis, who has spent 38 years in the NHS, came to see me. She failed the work capability test. She is 61 in April and is now being told that she will be retrained for a new career until she is 62, when she gets her pension. What on earth is the point in wasting money on individuals like that? There are also cases such as the 21-year-old young lady who ended up in the local psychiatric hospital because she failed the Atos interview. What is the cost of that to the NHS?
	I raise serious questions about the capability of the individuals who are doing the Atos assessments. We see from today’s very welcome briefing from the BMA that it is concerned about the turnover of GPs. Let me tell people—I do know a bit about mental health—that GPs are not experts on mental health. It is wrong to get someone who has no training in mental health to assess these cases. We need a new start for people with mental health conditions. We need to take them out of the system and we need a separate work stream for dealing with them. They should be assessed by people who are qualified psychiatrists and people who understand mental health. If we do not do that, we will continue to have the torture—I will use that word—that people are going through in this system and the deaths to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred. If the Minister can have that on his conscience, so be it; I do not think that I could if I were in his shoes.

Helen Goodman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this very important debate.
	Over 5,000 of my constituents are on incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance and they are facing this terrible system. I should like to give a few examples. Mr H, a double-leg amputee, was told to undertake an 80-mile round trip for his work capability assessment. Mr W, who has serious mental health problems, had a panic attack and was physically sick during his WCA but was told he was fit for work. His wife believes that he is being victimised by Atos. Mrs D, a district nurse who broke her back at work, was told that she is fit for work. Mrs M, who was treated for cancer in July 2010, was deemed fit for work before the results of the operation came through. Her appeal will not take place until next month. Mr E, who is one of the people the RNIB is worried about, had been completely blind for 16 years and forced to give up work, but was told by Atos that he was fit for work.
	As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) has said, we need fundamental reform of the system, including the descriptors. There are problems with the descriptors not only for mental health but for physical health, in every category. I will read out the conditions that have a score of 9, which means that people with all these conditions are deemed capable of going to work. A person who
	“Cannot mount or descend two steps unaided by another person even with the support of a handrail”
	is deemed fit for work; a person who
	“Cannot, for the majority of the time, remain at a work station, either…standing unassisted by another person…or…sitting…for more than 30 minutes, before needing to move away in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion”
	—fit for work; a person who
	“Cannot pick up and move a one litre carton full of liquid”
	—fit for work; a person who
	“Cannot use a pencil or pen to make a meaningful mark”
	—fit for work; a person who
	“cannot use a suitable keyboard or mouse”
	—fit for work; a person
	“Unable to navigate around unfamiliar surrounding, without being accompanied by another person, due to sensory impairment”
	—fit for work; a person
	“At risk of loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder, sufficient to require cleaning and a change in clothing, not able to reach a toilet quickly”
	—fit for work. And only scoring 6, a person who
	“At least once a month, has an involuntary episode of lost or altered consciousness resulting in significantly disrupted awareness or concentration”
	—also fit for work. As the RNIB points out, it is possible for a person to have an epileptic fit once a fortnight and be deemed fit for work. As it happens, Mr Deputy Speaker, my husband suffers from epilepsy, and last time he had an epileptic fit he had the headache and the hangover for several days, so the notion that anybody can do a job if they experience this once a fortnight is completely absurd.
	Also supposedly fit for work is someone who
	“Cannot learn anything beyond a simple task, such as setting an alarm clock”,
	or whose
	“Reduced awareness of everyday hazards leads to a significant risk of…injury to self or others; or…damage to property or possessions such that they frequently require supervision”.
	The situation is not even safe for their colleagues, but somehow they are deemed fit for work. The same applies to someone who
	“Cannot cope with minor planned change”,
	such as a change to lunchtime, or a person who
	“Is unable to get to a specified place with which they are familiar, without being accompanied by another person.”
	A person in the following category is also deemed fit for work if:
	“Engagement in social contact with someone unfamiliar to the claimant is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the individual.”
	This is a cynical exercise and Ministers know it. In the current situation, none of those people are ever going to find work. It is a cruel and demeaning system and it should be changed now.

Iain Wright: It is an honour to follow my fellow north-eastern MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for North Durham (Mr Jones).
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, I want to demonstrate to the House, through a series of examples from my case load, the crass, degrading and unprofessional way in which my constituents are being treated. A constituent of mine—let us call her Mrs J—is 51-years-old and suffers from diverticular disease. This leads to a compacting of her bowels, which means that she soils herself on a daily basis, requiring a change of clothes. Often she requires hospital treatment because when her bowels are heavily compacted she is unable to deal with the matter without medical intervention. She was on contribution-based ESA, but was allowed to be on it for only 365 days, and that period expired in 2012. She asked to be reassessed on the basis of her condition, and her assessment stated that she was fit for work. She appealed against this decision, but the appeal was declined. She had to go down the tribunal route but, as she told me in an e-mail last September:
	“So I’m now faced having to go to a tribunal which I was told today will take months. I’ve got no representation. I’m unable to go to the CAB as when I attempted to do this I’d soiled myself on route so ended up going home in tears. What can I do? I’ve not got a penny to my name. I’ve borrowed just to survive since April…I’m now faced with another 3-4 months with a tribunal decision again without money…I don’t know what to do and cannot carry on like this. Surely this isn’t how you expect people who legitimately cannot work. And the likelihood is I’ve failed my appeal just because I’ve not worded my appeal correctly when clearly my medical records and specialist have stated otherwise. Please, please help before I end up on the streets.”
	A gentleman in my constituency—let us call him Mr D—served in the forces for many years and is now in his late 50s. In the past 18 months, he has undergone extensive surgery to the brain, following a tumour, and in November 2011 he was informed that he required further surgery, this time to his neck, to remove the growing tumour. At the same time—in precisely the
	same month—Atos assessed Mr D as being fit for work. That assessment was undertaken by someone who was not trained as a doctor at a time when Mr D was going to assessments with a gaping wound in his head and still undergoing treatment. Does it not make an entire mockery of the whole process if that is allowed to happen? Does it not cast real doubt on the effectiveness and accuracy of the whole system? Most ominously, does it not reveal the system’s true intention?
	Several of my constituents—far too many to be isolated incidents—have told me that they were asked by the person carrying out the assessment whether they just sat around all day watching Jeremy Kyle. I expect uninformed, unprofessional and crass comments from the likes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but not from medical professionals with the serious task of determining whether a person is fit for work in, presumably, an objective and non-prejudicial manner.
	Another woman in my constituency—let us call her Mrs M—left school at 16 and worked diligently for 33 years. She paid her taxes. She was made redundant a couple of years ago at just the time that she was starting to suffer from ill health. Mrs M suffers from Crohn’s disease, which has led to severe diarrhoea, incontinence and abdominal pain. She has had surgery to remove a large section of her bowel, but the symptoms are getting worse. As Members may know, there is no cure for Crohn’s disease. Mrs M will not recover. There will be a gradual and irreversible increase in the severity and frequency of her symptoms. Mrs M is a proud and dignified woman who is embarrassed by her condition. She wants to do nothing more than work, but is unable to do so. She suffers from about two bouts of diarrhoea a day, for which she has no more than a second’s notice, and she cannot leave the house unaccompanied.
	Mrs M was assessed as having 15 points with limited capability for work. Her assessment and appeal were degrading, insensitive and unprofessional. She was described throughout her appeal notes as a man. Incorrect dates and fictitious telephone calls were placed on her files—in other words, lies. Mrs M was told that she could wear a nappy for work. What sort of country have we become? What sort of ethical values do the Government have, if that is the degrading and crass way in which decent, law-abiding constituents of mine are being dealt with?
	I believe that everybody who can work should be entitled to work and that the role of the state is to help achieve that, but all the evidence in my constituency demonstrates that the system is not working and the most vulnerable and ill constituents in Hartlepool are paying the price. The Government are treating my constituents like dirt and that needs to change.

Kate Green: Last week I held a meeting in my constituency for a number of disabled constituents, their carers and family members, and the organisations that support them. I want to highlight to the Minister two or three messages that build on some of the things that have been said this afternoon.
	First, and most importantly, the Minister needs to understand how totally discredited this whole system has become. My constituents told me categorically last
	week that they believe that the whole system was deliberately designed and operated to trick them—to make them incriminate themselves and to catch them out. They firmly believe that the system is deliberately designed, not to assess and then help them into work if they are fit for it, but simply to stop paying benefits wherever possible. I regret that they continue to believe—I know that this is not the case—that Atos is paid to bring that about.
	Whether or not the system is deliberately designed to trick them, it is clear that there are far too many instances of trickery and misleading people and of distorting what they have done, said and reported and drawing conclusions from that. That is happening far too often. It is an absolute disgrace that we should run a public assessment process in such a discredited way.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: I will not, because others wish to make speeches.
	The Minister has to either sort out the process or address the fundamental scepticism and mistrust of the system. Many Members have already said that we do not believe that that is possible unless the system is scrapped and we start all over again.
	I say to the Minister—because I think I know what he will say in his response to the debate—that I understand that this is an occupational assessment, not a medical assessment. I understand why it is not just doctors, but other occupational health professionals who can carry out the test, but it is disgraceful when those professionals have no understanding of the underlying medical condition and can arrive at such distorted judgments on a person’s fitness for work.
	I also want to report to the Minister that, of the couple of dozen constituents I met last week, about half of them had no idea that they could take a companion to the assessment process. They said that they had not been told. Of those who did know that they could take a companion and who had sometimes done so, that companion was not made to feel welcome and was not able to assist them. Someone who suffers from autism is likely to behave in a particular way when responding to the questions asked—by trying to please and to give the answer that they think is wanted, rather than accurate—so I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that a companion who can support them and, if necessary, intervene is very important indeed. This bit of the system is not working and the Minister needs to look at it very carefully.
	When the work capability assessment was introduced, we knew that it would be difficult and that we were trying something new. We built in the review process that led to the appointment of Professor Malcolm Harrington and some of the early improvements, which I think we all welcomed. Today, however, we have to face up to the fact that it is no longer possible to make the kinds of improvements that would make the system viable.
	I get the impression—perhaps the Minister will correct this—that the Government have moved from trying to improve the system to either defending it or, to be frank, washing their hands of it. I honestly do not believe that
	that is a good enough response. If the Minister intends to say that there is not a problem, that improvements can continue and that these are simply still early days teething troubles, I say to him that the extent of the reports from throughout the House and the country of repeated, systemic problems means that it is time to look again.
	I am sure that the Minister and many Members will remember—I most certainly do—the last time we had such a failure, whatever the intentions, of public policy implementation: the Child Support Agency. It took us 20 years to realise that the design that had been put in place simply could not work. Please let us not wait 20 years to realise that this system cannot work and must be started again.

David Anderson: As a member of the Backbench Business Committee, I was delighted that we scheduled this topic for debate. I believe that it is an example of the exact reason why the Committee was set up on the insistence of people who were Members way before us. This is about Parliament doing business. It is not about petty, party political point scoring; it is about issues that face thousands of our people every day. Those issues might one day face some of us or our family members. The issue also impacts on this country’s taxpayers, who are not getting value for money. It is about a system that has failed.
	The Prime Minister said in May 2010:
	“The test of a good society is how you protect the poorest, the most vulnerable, the elderly and the frail.”
	I agree with the Prime Minister on very little, but I certainly agree with him on that. That is the test that should be held today.
	People say that the jury is out on Atos, but it is not —it has been out and has come back in, and the evidence is that Atos is failing miserably. We have already heard that 40% of appeals are successful. Evidence published this week has shown that, when people are represented, 70% of appeals are successful. The system is broken. This is not just about the financial cost of appeals; the human cost and suffering of people waiting to go through appeals is drastic.
	I will not go through individual cases. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to evidence from those who represent people. First, I ask the Minister whether he has read “The People’s Review of the Work Capability Assessment”, which was produced in November 2012? It contains 67 pages of indictments of the system. It was supported by people across this House and by professionals inside and outside the system.
	I asked my caseworker, Sheila Stevenson, how the work capability assessment was affecting people in my constituency. She said, “How many people do you want me to tell you about?” I asked her to give me her view. This is a woman who for seven years was a legal officer for the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and has worked for me for four years. She said that about every third call is about benefits—mainly about ESA and people being found fit for work. People are being found fit for work despite an NHS GP, a consultant or psychiatric reports saying that they are not. Atos does not seem to take medical reports into account when deciding on someone’s capability. About
	90% of my work is now benefits-related, whereas two years ago the figure was about 20%. As the citizens advice bureaux and jobcentres cannot cope, they refer cases to their local MP.
	Recently, the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities, which I chair, heard evidence from Keith Lamb from the Durham Colliery Mechanics Trust and Mick White who works for the Yorkshire miners about their experiences from decades of representing people at work. They have had a huge increase in their work load and a very low success rate in overturning these decisions. They talked about how people have been failed. Doctors have made a number of mistakes. Assessors have been used whose first language is not English, so they cannot discuss clearly with claimants what their problems are. Claimants have signed medical reports and doctors have filled them in afterwards, when they were not even present at the medical. Claimants have been told that they do not have a disease.
	I will give a classic example of the last point which the Minister should know about because, like me, he comes from a part of world where diseases such as pneumoconiosis cripple people. The Americans call it “black lung”. It is where somebody has a lung full of coal dust. People who have pneumoconiosis never improve and there is no way of getting better. And yet, people who are inexperienced are saying that people with the disease are no longer suffering and are capable of work. That is utterly out of order.
	I spoke last night to Dave Hopper, who is the general secretary of the Durham Miners Association, an organisation that has represented people in this country for almost 200 years. He said:
	“The system is breaking down.”
	He told me that decades of close, professional relationships that had been built up between the association and the examiners and the chairmen of the tribunals are being undermined by the aggressive attitude of the people from Atos. He said that claimants are in dread of examinations and many refuse to appeal because of their initial experience. Surely that has to be wrong.
	We are told in this House time and again that we need evidence-based policy. The Minister has today heard evidence from both sides of the House of where the system is breaking down. I suggest that he takes the evidence on board, listens to the people out there in the real world who are dealing with this matter day in and day out, gets them to sit around the table with Professor Harrington, and puts the system right. The system has failed, we need to put it right and we need to do so now.

Julie Hilling: There is so much to say and so little time. Let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this important debate.
	The Government have many questions to answer about the way that work capability assessments are being carried out and about Atos. The way in which decisions are made on the ability of disabled people to work is nothing short of scandalous. The attack on people who are unable to work, in which they are labelled as skivers and scroungers, has demonised them in the eyes of the public. Yet fraud in disability benefits
	is very low—so low that it is not even under continuous review. Why are Atos and the Department for Work and Pensions cruelly finding people fit for work or putting them in the work-related activity group when they are clearly unable to work?
	About 40% of appeals against the assessments are successful. Interestingly, the figure rises to 70% for claimants who are represented by a benefits expert. Of course, the success rate is only half the story because some people are too ill to appeal, others decide to resubmit their application from the start, and still others die before they get to the tribunal.
	There are real questions about Atos and the Government. If I had a contract with anyone who failed in 40% of their decisions and cost me a lot of money, I would not continue to use them. However, the Government have just given Atos the contract for the personal independence payment, so they cannot be dissatisfied with its performance. There are questions to answer. Are the Government giving targets to Atos, either covertly or overtly? Have the Government discussed their expectation of reducing the number of people on benefits or is Atos doing that of its own accord? Everybody says officially that there are no targets, but workers report a different story.
	When Dr Steve Bick went undercover for the “Dispatches” programme, he was told more than once that the process is meant to take people off benefit, and that if he did not find enough people fit to work, his assessments would be monitored. He was also told that if he found more than 12% or 13% of people unfit for work, he would be told that his rate was too high.
	My surgery is full of people who have been cruelly treated by the DWP and Atos. I wish that I could tell all their stories, but I will tell just a few. I have changed their names. Sylvia’s husband came to see me because she was too ill to come. She had a subarachnoid haemorrhage four years ago, but aged 41, has now been found fit for work. She suffers blackouts, cannot dress herself, cannot self-medicate, cannot climb stairs by herself and cannot go out alone because she cannot remember where she lives or where she is going. Three to four times each month, she gets hemiplegic migraines, which last between two and six days, and mean that she becomes paralysed on her right side and loses her speech. Despite that, she has been found fit for work. The jobcentre, however, will not sign her on because it says that she is not fit for work. Needless to say, the stress sets off her migraines. One wonders what is the matter with her assessors.
	Susan, a sufferer of fibromyalgia and hypermobility syndrome, told me that she felt like she was on trial for benefit fraud at her assessment. Bill, a former long-distance lorry driver, had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease and diabetes. He thought the fact that he could not breathe would be reason enough to find him unfit for work, but of course he was wrong. He did not tell the assessors about his cerebral brain ascension, which means that he has terrible memory problems, because he is ashamed of having the condition. Of course, he has now had to tell them. He waited for nine months and then the decision was overturned.
	There are many more people I could talk about, but I will finish with Clare, who has severe mental health issues and scoliosis. She scored 15 points and was
	placed in the work-related activity group, even though she will clearly never be able to work. She appealed the decision and had to wait for 12 months, which made her condition far worse. She was then put in the support group.
	People being placed in the work-related activity group is the next scandal. When people score 15 points and are found not fit for work, but are put in the work-related activity group, they will lose their benefit after 365 days. Is that another way of saving money, but one that also puts disabled people into abject poverty and causes them terrible stress?
	There are so many questions. Why do the assessors give more weight to work capability assessment descriptors than to professional medical assessments? Why do they reassess people who have just won their appeal? Why do they not record the number of people who die through illness or suicide when being rejected for disability benefit? Why do they not track people who have been found fit for work and people who no longer receive benefit? How much do all the botched assessments cost us?
	We believe that we have a contract with the state. We work and pay our national insurance and tax in the belief that when we can no longer work, the state will look after us. The Government seem to have broken that contract. Surely the Minister cannot accept this cruel and heartless treatment of ill and disabled people. What is he going to do about it?

Sheila Gilmore: Like everybody else, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it. Clearly, we could have done with double the time or even more. Most of us could probably speak for at least an hour on these issues.
	Getting the system right is hugely important for individuals. People have spoken about the effects on people’s mental state and their well-being, but I will mention some of the financial effects, which the last speaker began to touch on, for people who go into the work-related activity group. If that decision is not right, those people lose their contributory benefits after a year. The people who suffer the most from that are those who have a working partner—that partner may only work part time—and who have built up some savings, because they cease to get any benefit. If they want to get their national insurance credits, they still have to go through the assessment or they will not get the credits that will help them in the future with their pension. They may not be getting any money, but they are still going through the assessments.
	Depending on the prognosis that is given in the recommendation—we are told it is not a “decision”—by Atos, many of the people in the work-related activity group will be mandated into the Work programme. That happens if the prognosis is that they might be fit within six months, but we are told that that will shortly be increased to twelve months. That means they could experience sanctions if things go wrong with the Work programme. If something goes wrong, perhaps because they have a learning disability or a mental health problem, and they do not turn up or are deemed not to be co-operating, they could be sanctioned. I have a constituent
	in that position who was sanctioned for six months for that reason. The people in that group are the ones who are most affected by having only a 1% increase in benefits for the next three years, although it must be said that people in the support group are in large part also affected, contrary to what has been said.
	Getting it wrong can mean that people slip off benefits altogether. Research commissioned by the previous Government, which I understand is not being continued by this Government—the Minister might reassure us on that—found that 43% of those found fit for work were neither in work nor in receipt of an out-of-work benefit a year later. We must ask where they are. What is happening to them? We should know and we should care. It is not good enough for Minister to say, “We have reduced the number of people on out-of-work benefits,” and to imply that those people are happily in work when that is almost certainly not the case.
	The Minister will probably say that things are improving, but the work on the descriptors shows that the pace is glacial. In November 2011, Professor Harrington suggested that new descriptors be tested. The Government said then that they would look at the suggestion in early 2012. The current position is that the testing has only recently begun, and we will be lucky if we get a full response and report on it by autumn 2013, which is nearly two years since Professor Harrison made that suggestion.
	Another problem—this has already been touched on by others—is that some people are falling into a hidden trap. They are found fit for work, but are told that they cannot sign on for JSA, which is the only benefit for which they are eligible, because they are not fit for work and hold a medical certificate. Potentially, people in that situation get no benefit. I am not sure whether Ministers are even aware of that procedural issue.
	On appeals, finally, after a lot of pushing, tribunal judges are giving limited information on their reasons, but it is not good enough—it is too general. But that information is being used by Ministers, and it was used by Atos in a briefing that I presume was sent to all MPs, to say that all is well, because it was found that Atos was found to be at fault in only 0.5% of cases. That is very misleading, because people are winning their appeals on the basis of new oral evidence.

Cathy Jamieson: It is a pleasure to follow so many passionate speeches this afternoon and to say a few words on behalf of some of the constituents who have contacted me. Like many hon. Members, I have held meetings in my constituency. I have also met Parkinson’s UK and the local branch of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, and received representations from many cancer patients. I hope the Minister can say something about their situations and about how descriptors affect cancer patients.
	However, I want briefly to highlight other issues. There is a perception—notwithstanding what Atos or the Department for Work and Pensions says—that there are targets for placing numbers of people in the various groups. One constituent got in touch with me when he found out about this debate. He states:
	“Getting a copy of the ESA85 report…to which everyone examined is entitled was like getting blood out of a stone.”
	The man was found fit to work despite being on crutches and in constant pain at the time. He said:
	“When I eventually received a copy I found that the examiner had stated clearly that I was found unfit for any kind of work and would remain so for at least two years.”
	He tells me that when he tried to follow that up via the DWP, he was left with the distinct impression that staff had been advised, encouraged or instructed that everyone was to go into one of the employment support groups rather than be deemed completely unfit for work. I am sure the Minister will be able to comment on that.
	Another issue that people frequently raise with me is about consultants. People who have seen consultants for medical conditions for a number of years feel that their consultant and general practitioner know their condition well, but they suddenly find that the Atos examiner takes a very different view. I have one example of a gentleman who was brought to my constituency office by a neighbour. He had had his third WCA in May 2012 and was zero rated. On the previous two occasions he appealed, and his appeals were upheld on the basis that the tribunal decided that he had reduced awareness of everyday hazards, leading to a significant risk of injury to him or others, and was therefore not fit for work.
	That gentleman was brought to my office in August 2012 because he was awaiting his third appeal and was distressed by the process. Obviously, we gave him advice. On 8 October, the neighbour contacted me to say that the gentleman had passed away. We have heard a few such examples in the debate, but I hope the Minister realises the stresses and strains and the problems caused to family and friends when people are waiting for extended periods for their appeals.
	I should briefly mention mental health, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and again quote a constituent who contacted me this week. He says:
	“I have been treated by my GP for over seven years for this illness, he is aware of the ups and downs, and the debilitating effects I am subject to. How can a registered nurse make a decision on my mental health in 41 minutes, most of which was asking questions about my physical health? This is what happened at my Atos WCA…There must be a change to the way people with mental health problems are dealt with by the system. I have spent the time since my WCA in June in misery, and the weeks leading up to the tribunal hearing in a mix of terror and stress. I was terrified at the tribunal itself.”
	That is no way to treat people in a civilised society. The gentleman says that he is
	“part of the last generation of ‘stiff upper lip’ and ‘put the best face on it’ people.”
	He says that that “works against” him because he does not fit what he describes as the stereotype of someone with a mental health problem.
	We need a system that is sophisticated enough to deal with those situations, but also one that is fair enough to ensure that people who are in the last weeks of their lives are not left in misery while they await tribunals.

Stephen Timms: We have a heard a large number—26, I believe—of extraordinarily powerful speeches in the debate. There is no doubt that the current WCA arrangements are causing immense problems and anxiety for people for whom all hon. Members want anxiety to be minimised.
	In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) mentioned the distress, indignation, fear and anger that have been caused. His assertion was amply supported by contributions from both sides of the House. We should not allow the system to continue. It needs fast and fundamental reform. I put it to the Minister—this struck me as I am sure it did him—that calls for such reform have come from both sides of the House, which does not often happen. It certainly happened today.
	Part of the background to the debate is that a very small proportion of people who are placed by the WCA in the work-related activity group of ESA are getting into work. The invitation to tender for the Work programme said that the minimum performance standard would be that 5.5% of new applicants for ESA get into sustained job outcomes within one year, but the data published in November show that the proportion was 1%. The Work programme has performed terribly for the group of people we have spoken about in this debate.
	What has gone wrong? The structure of the employment and support allowance is right. In the 1980s—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was absolutely right to remind the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) of this—thousands of people were encouraged to move from unemployment benefit to invalidity benefit in order to reduce headline unemployment. People who worked in benefit offices at that time have explained to me how staff were given incentives to encourage people to make that shift. Once they had gone on to invalidity benefit, later incapacity benefit, that was it—they were abandoned. No further support beyond the cash benefit was provided. It was only in 1997 that that began to change. It was recognised that the vast majority of people in receipt of incapacity benefit would prefer to be in employment, if they could be. Starting with the new deal for disabled people and later with pathways to work, new ideas were developed. Nothing previously had been done to practically support people with serious health impairments into work. The approach can be summarised as: work for those who were in a position to work, and support for those who were not.
	Out of that experience was drawn the design of the employment and support allowance. From that, the work capability assessment was designed to allocate people into the three groups: fit for work, work-related activity group, and support group. That is the right structure and architecture for the benefit, but it is the assessment—the topic of this debate—that is now in doubt. The key problem is that very soon after the election, the Government announced that they would reassess the entire incapacity benefit case load on a very fast timetable. At that time, the WCA had been introduced less than two years previously. Problems were still being ironed out and the organisation had not properly bedded down, yet on to this still developing system was placed the enormous burden of reassessment. Atos tells us it carried out 1 million work capability assessments last year. The load has just been too much, resulting in the problems that we have heard about, and which have been expressed so impressively in this debate.
	The Minister will be aware of a good deal of concern among disability rights organisations about the Employment and Support Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 2012.
	They were laid before Parliament just before Christmas on 17 December, and come into force on 28 January. They include the changes that will allow people recovering from cancer to go more frequently into the support group—a welcome change that was referred to by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). He said that the changes had already happened, but in fact they will take place on 28 January. A lot of people are worried that the regulations appear to give Atos permission to take account of non-existent, imaginary adaptations or medication in the assessment, and introduce a false distinction between physical and mental impairments. There is a lot of concern and I am sure the Minister is aware of it. Will he be able to say anything to address it?
	The Government have recognised that the WCA needs modification. However, as we have heard from a number of speakers, they have gone about the task in an extraordinarily leisurely way, which has been described as “glacial” by a number of Members. I hope that the Minister can encourage us and tell us that the Department will now get a move on. I want to put to him a number of specific points. When will the changes to the descriptors for fluctuating conditions and mental health conditions, which were recommended months ago by the disability organisations, be implemented? He answered a question that I tabled last week on this, and there still seems to be a terrible, lackadaisical approach. He said:
	“The Evidence Based Review (EBR) remains a priority for the Department and work is continuing at pace. The final report is due in 2013.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 180W.]
	That was the first alarm signal, because his predecessor, in an answer on 25 June 2012, had told me that the final report would be due in spring 2013. Now the Minister is saying it will be in 2013. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East suggested that it will not be until autumn 2013. If that is right, that is another six-month delay. We really need to get a move on.
	In his reply to me last week, the Minister said:
	“We have undertaken extensive work with these charities throughout the summer”—
	that was an answer last week, and the summer was the season before last. What happened in autumn?—
	“to ensure that the ‘alternative’ WCA assessment combines recommendations from both the mental functioning and fluctuating conditions groups, and that the descriptors are suitable for testing.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 181-82W.]
	The mental health descriptors were signed off by the charities in March last year. I really hope that the Minister will get the Department to get a move on and not just try these things out, which is what the evidence-based review—when it finally happens—will do, but introduce the changes that are clearly so urgently needed.
	On progressive conditions, does it make sense to push everybody with a progressive condition, such as Parkinson’s disease, through regular reassessments when we all know that those conditions are only going to move in one direction and get worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made that point in an intervention. The Minister answered a question from me recently about this. He said:
	“Around 360 people with Parkinson’s disease in the Work Related Activity Group have undergone a repeat assessment following their initial assessment…Of these, around 20 people…were found Fit for Work at their first repeat assessment.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 725W.]
	No doubt some of them will have appealed and had their appeals upheld. Is it really worth putting 360 people with Parkinson’s disease through reassessments in order to find that perhaps 20 should be fit for work—although, as I say, a number of those would no doubt have been overturned? I also asked how much the reassessments were costing. As a number of Members pointed out, the Minister simply will simply not answer any questions about cost, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. This is public money, and we need to know where this money is going and how it is being spent.
	We need to make better provision for people to be able to supply their own supporting medical information in their assessment—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton in opening the debate, and by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). The application form should be amended to invite people’s own supporting medical information, and Atos assessors need to be more open to being informed by that information.
	Atos assessors should be told why previous assessments were overturned on appeal—a point raised with me by Atos itself some months ago. We have heard how often people have won their appeal, gone back to Atos and immediately been found fit for work again. Part of the problem is that Atos was never told why a person’s appeal was upheld. I believe that changes are in hand or perhaps have been introduced to assess that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), however, was among those who referred to the seriousness of this revolving door problem. It needs to be addressed. I was also troubled by what she said about the difficulties people had getting their assessments recorded. That was supposed to have been sorted out, but her comments, and those of others, suggest otherwise.

Sheila Gilmore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although tribunal judges are giving brief statements of reasons, these are not enough to help the decision makers or Atos understand?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. That information needs to be provided.
	The architecture of ESA is sound, but the assessment system is clearly not up to the load it is being asked to bear. That is why we need fundamental and much faster reform, with a much greater sense of urgency than we have seen from Ministers so far.

Mark Hoban: I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this helpful debate. It gives me the opportunity to address some of the concerns expressed on both sides of the House about this process.
	“For too long, too many long-term sick and disabled people have been written off by the welfare system to a life of dependency, entirely reliant on benefit and devoid of experience of the labour market.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 246.]
	Those were not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) when he was employment Minister on Third Reading of the
	Welfare Reform Bill in January 2007. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was a DWP Minister at the tail end of the previous Government, so I am sure she made her concerns known at that time to her ministerial colleagues—or perhaps not. This measure was introduced by the previous Government. The argument of the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire was right then, and it is right now.

Helen Goodman: Government Members are constantly asking Opposition Members to say sorry. Actually, about the way this has run, I am sorry.

Mark Hoban: I welcome the hon. Lady’s candour. It would be good if more of her colleagues expressed similar candour.
	One aspect of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 that has been referred to frequently throughout the debate is the establishment of the independent annual review. The last three have been undertaken by Professor Harrington, a distinguished occupational physician. What evidence has he put forward? In his first report, he stated that he did
	“not believe that the system is broken or beyond repair”.
	In his second report, he noted that the WCA had
	“noticeably changed for the better”,
	and in his third report, he said that
	“real progress has been made”
	and stressed that
	things are beginning to change positively in the best interests of the individual.”
	It is important not to lose sight of that.

David Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Hoban: I want to make a bit more progress, because a lot of detailed points were raised and I want to address as many of them as possible.
	Despite the improvement, it is clear—today’s debate reinforces this—that the WCA continues to generate heartfelt and passionately held views, but some of the worry experienced by claimants is a result of adverse media coverage and risks being fuelled by incorrect anecdotal information and—indeed—total myth. We have heard some of those myths today, and I want to set the record straight. This is an opportunity to address the facts behind the process and to set out what is happening in the Atos process.
	Several hon. Members suggested that Atos had targets for finding people fit for work or placing them in a particular group. Let me be absolutely clear—let nobody in or beyond the House be in any doubt—there are no such targets. There are no targets for who should be put into which group. Instead—hon. Members would want this—there are quality-control checks. We want the right decisions to be made for our constituents and we want to ensure consistency between physicians and practitioners, and assessment centres. That quality control —saying that we should all be familiar with things we do and come across in our daily life—is not the same as a target. Atos has no targets to recommend that people go in particular groups.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for that assurance, because it is a matter of great concern. Will the Minister go a step further and say whether he is aware of any internal targets? Will he give us an assurance that there are no internal targets at Atos?

Mark Hoban: There is nothing in the contract with Atos to suggest that there should be any targets for whom they recommend gets placed in particular groups. I want to be absolutely clear: there no targets and it is absolutely right that there should be no targets, because what all of us want, whichever side of the debate we are on, is to ensure that we get the right people in the right groups for the right support. We cannot do that with targets. We have to treat everyone individually. That is the dignity that we should accord the people going through the process. They should know that they are going to be treated with dignity. There are no preconceived targets.

Julie Hilling: The question then is not whether the Government are putting targets in place, but whether the Minister is 100% convinced that Atos does not set targets for any of its work force in any way, because that does not seem to be the evidence coming out. Is he utterly convinced about that and if not, will he investigate whether that is the case?

Mark Hoban: We have these discussions; there are no targets in the system. Indeed, the proportion of people who have been placed in the support group has doubled. To my mind, that suggests that there are no targets—it is very clear evidence of that.

Natascha Engel: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: No, I am not going to give way. I want to make some more progress and the hon. Lady raised some questions that I want to address.
	It has also been suggested that Atos health care professionals make decisions on benefit entitlement. They do not. Those decisions are made by DWP decision makers. They take the ESA50—the form people complete when making an ESA claim—any further medical evidence produced by a GP, consultant or health practitioner with whom the claimant is working, and the Atos assessment, but they look at all that evidence. The decision is made by DWP decision makers, not Atos. That is why there are a number of cases where the DWP decision maker’s decision has been different from any recommendation made by Atos. It is up to the DWP—the decision is made by the Department, not Atos—to decide who goes into which group.

Pamela Nash: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: Let me make a bit more progress.
	People say that the number of appeals overturned at tribunal is evidence of poor Atos reports—a point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). When we asked judges why they overturned DWP decisions, they said that an error in the Atos assessment was the primary reason for an overturn in only 0.3% of cases. However, although it happens very rarely, I agree with her on one point: I would like to get more information from the judges.

Iain Wright: You’re a Minister!

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman says that I am a Minister, but the judges are independent—one of the strengths of our system. I hope that the judges have heard the comments that have been made—not only in this debate, but in other debates—about the need for more detail. To get the system right we need better feedback from the judges, but let us not forget that where we ask judges for the reason for an overturn, in a large proportion of cases they say it is the presentation of fresh evidence. They are very explicit in saying that the primary reason for overturn in only 0.3% of cases is the Atos assessment.

Sheila Gilmore: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because this is an important point, especially as it has been briefed on so often. What I want to know—the Minister has to ask this question too—is this. I suspect that the question of overturns is simply one of some fairly simple error in the form, but according to the same judges, in 40% of cases they made their decision because they disagreed with the presentation of the case. That still suggests something wrong with the initial assessments—whether because the people concerned did not present them well or because the Atos assessors rushed them through. In 40% of cases the judges came to a different decision.

Mark Hoban: Just because the statistics do not suit the hon. Lady’s argument does not mean that they are wrong. A lot of this debate is about constituency casework and experience. Sometimes we also need to look at the overall stats and figures behind this issue to put those cases in context, which is why I made the point about the overturn rate.
	It has been suggested that GPs should make the assessment. The British Medical Association has been prayed in aid. Let me quote what the BMA said about that idea:
	“However, it is not part of the GP’s role to provide any opinion…on the patient’s capability to work as part of this process. It is vital that these two roles are kept separate and that GPs are not asked to provide an opinion on their patient for the purpose of receiving the Employment and Support Allowance; doing so could damage the doctor-patient relationship.”
	It has also been said that the work capability assessment does not take full account of mental health conditions. Let me say a bit about that important issue. We have sought to improve the process and the support for the health care professionals who are undertaking the assessments. All Atos health care professionals receive specific and additional training in assessing mental health conditions—

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: No, I am going to continue.

Kevan Jones: You are talking rubbish, that’s why.

Mark Hoban: We do ensure that those professionals receive the support that they need to assess those conditions.
	Following Professor Harrington’s recommendation, Atos has 60 mental health function champions in place to spread best practice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) asked whether
	they had specific training in autism. I can assure her that that is the case. She also asked, as did other hon. Members, whether we could review the effectiveness of the mental health champions. It is not for me to dictate the work that Professor Harrington’s successor will undertake as part of the fourth review, but I think that that is a good suggestion. We need to look at the effectiveness of the recommendations that Professor Harrington has made.

David Anderson: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: I am going to make some progress, as I have only a few minutes left to speak before the next debate starts.
	In March 2011, we also implemented the recommendations of a Department-led review of the work capability assessment, which included the expansion of the support group to cover more people with certain communication problems and severe disability due to mental health conditions.
	Hon. Members have suggested that the assessment does not take account of fluctuating conditions, but that is not the case. It gives people with a fluctuating condition the opportunity to explain how their condition varies over time. It is not a tick-box assessment, as some have suggested. There is a discussion between the health care professional and the person making the claim for ESA to determine how their condition varies over time. The questionnaire that customers are sent has been redesigned for that purpose, and people are now asked to give more details about how their fluctuating condition affects them as an individual. If a person cannot carry out a function repeatedly and reliably, they will be treated as unable to carry out that function at all. We all recognise that the capacity of people with a fluctuating condition can change, and it is important that proper regard should be given to that fact.
	I want to pick up on a point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). We have committed to a review of the descriptors for fluctuating conditions, and we are working closely with charities on that. We also need to ensure that any new descriptors are as good as, or better than, the existing ones, for the purpose of assessing someone’s condition. That work is going on at the moment.

Stephen Timms: rose—

Mark Hoban: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is keen to find out when that review will be published, but let me just say this. We want to make changes, if there is evidence to support such changes, and we need to ensure that that evidence is gathered and evaluated. I am as keen as he is to ensure that changes are made as quickly as possible, and that we make the right changes and the best changes to improve the process. I am not in any way seeking to delay the process—we want to ensure that it happens—but we have had to work quite hard to get the right descriptors that will provide the evidence on functional ability, and we are now assessing them.

Stephen Timms: rose—

Mark Hoban: I will not give way. I have only three or four minutes left and there is a bit more to say.
	Some criticism has been made of Atos, with suggestions that—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is most courteously attending to the issues, and he refers to three or four minutes. I know that he will be leaving at least two, if not three, minutes for the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) to wind up at the end. I think that we are clear on that.

Mark Hoban: I am, Mr Speaker. I am aiming to finish at 2.58 to allow the right hon. Gentleman his two minutes. I would quite happily continue for longer, but I know another debate is to follow in which hon. Members are also interested and another time limit applies.

Russell Brown: rose—

Stephen Timms: rose—

Mark Hoban: I have only four minutes left and I want to address some more questions.
	Let me deal with the issue of Atos’s capability. Atos deals with 100,000 cases every month and it consistency meets the quality thresholds. Only 3.6% of assessments are below standard compared with a threshold of 5%. It receives complaints about only 0.6% of assessments. DWP decision makers return to Atos assessments that are inadequate for reaching a decision in only 0.2% of cases.
	The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) asked about the appeal rates. Let me be clear about the rate of successful appeals. Of all the fit-for-work decisions taken by the Department, only 15% are overturned on appeal. Only 15% of all the decisions we take, then, are overturned on appeal, which I think demonstrates that while we need to ensure that there is a proper appeals process, we should not be bandying around figures that misrepresent the level of successful appeals.

Natascha Engel: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: No. I have two minutes left and I want to make some more comments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) talked about quality. The tribunal service can refer substandard reports back to Atos as an appeal for further action. It has exercised that right only 23 times in the past year. Rigorous checks are in place to ensure that quality applies.
	Much has been said about employment and support allowance not working—that is untrue. What we are seeing is people coming off ESA and getting into work. The number of working-age people on ESA and incapacity benefit in February 2012 was 2.56 million—the lowest level since the introduction of IB in 1995. Early estimates to September 2012 suggest that overall numbers for this benefit are falling and will for the first time be below 2.5 million.
	Finally, although there are many other myths, the last one I shall address today is the myth that the WSA is not fit for purpose. Professor Harrington has made it quite clear that the WSA, designed as a first positive step for work, is the right concept for assessing people who need our support. There is a need to improve it. No
	one doubts that, which is why we have implemented Professor Harrington’s recommendations. The assessment we inherited needed refinement. That is why we accepted and have largely implemented more than 40 of his recommendations over the past two years. That is why twice as many people have gone into the support group in comparison with when ESA was introduced.
	Overall, the proportion of people with mental health conditions being awarded ESA has risen from 33% to 49%. We are seeing improvements and more will be introduced later this month on the categories of cancer treatment that allow people to go straight into the work-related activity group. These changes are happening. We should recognise that change is important and that it is happening. This is the right approach; demonising the work capability assessment does not help our constituents and does not address their concerns.

Michael Meacher: I cannot remember attending such a compelling and powerful debate, combining passion, analysis and a very powerful demand for radical reform. It is absolutely clear that the consensus of the whole House is that the current Atos system has failed irretrievably and needs to be replaced by a wholly new and fair system.
	I have to say that the Minister’s response just now was extremely disappointing. He gave no assurance whatever that the present failed, mechanistic, tick-box system used by Atos will be replaced, or that the evidence of GPs and other medical personnel who know the disabled person will be taken into account. He could thus give no assurance that the original decisions will be made any more accurate or fairer. As a consequence, the appeals system, already overloaded, is going to remain choked.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, made the forceful point that when Atos works for another employer, such as the NHS or Royal Mail, it produces very different results in terms of fitness for work—which strongly suggests the very uncomfortable truth that perhaps the DWP is entirely prepared to accept the results that we all deplore if that is only way of getting hundreds of thousands of people off benefits.
	That is not just the view of the Opposition. I think that the mood of the House was caught by one of the Minister’s very senior colleagues, who said—I noted it down at the time—that the reputation of Atos was so damaged that it was necessary to park it to one side and move off in a different direction. That is exactly what is needed.
	This issue is a test of the Government’s accountability to the House. In my opinion, the incontrovertible message conveyed by today’s debate is that until the Government and the DWP listen to, and act on, the unanimous view that has been expressed today—I have never seen such unanimity across the Benches—and introduce a wholly different system, the House will not let the matter go.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of Atos work capability assessments.

Nuclear Deterrent

[Relevant documents:The Fourth Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, on The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Terminating Trident-Days or Decades?, HC 676, and the Government response, HC 86.]

Mr Speaker: Interest in this debate has led me again to impose a six-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution.

Julian Lewis: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the nuclear deterrent.
	The motion stands in my name, and that of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn).
	Obtaining the debate involved a genuinely collaborative effort across the political divide. Part of the beauty of the Backbench Business Committee process is that it compels people who disagree profoundly about issues to work together to ensure that those issues are brought to the Floor of the House. No fewer than two dozen colleagues representing both sides of the argument supported our application for the debate at various stages. They are too numerous to list, but representations were made to the Backbench Business Committee by—as well as the hon. Member for Newport West and me—the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for Crawley (Henry Smith), for Woking (Jonathan Lord), and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Others who were particularly supportive include the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
	I know that several of those Members, as well as others—not least the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is participating in a broadcast on this very subject this afternoon—regret that Committee meetings and other inescapable commitments prevent them from attending today’s debate. I am grateful to them all, and I hope that the tone and content of our debate between now and 5 pm will justify the effort that they all put into encouraging the Backbench Business Committee to select this important topic.
	Given that we must fit some 20 speeches into just two hours, I shall endeavour to make my own remarks as brief as possible. I wish to outline just five military arguments and four rather more political arguments in favour of our retaining the independent deterrent. The first of the military arguments is the most important argument of all: that future military threats and conflicts will be no more predictable than those that engulfed us throughout the 20th century. That is the overriding justification for preserving armed forces in peacetime as a national insurance policy. No one knows which enemies may confront us during the next 30 to 50 years—for that is the period that we are discussing, when the next generation of the nuclear deterrent will be in service—but it is highly probable that at least some of those enemies will be armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Henry Smith: I greatly regret that, owing to a prime ministerial meeting with GPs from my constituency, I shall be unable to take part substantively in the debate.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that our independent nuclear deterrent has helped to keep the peace in Europe for the past six decades, and that, because we effectively bankrupted the Soviet Union, it has led to the freeing of millions of people in eastern Europe?

Julian Lewis: I am sure that will be a central topic in our debate, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope some of the later points in my list of nine arguments will serve to endorse what he has said.
	My second argument is that it is not the weapons themselves that we have to fear, but the nature of the regimes that possess them. Whereas democracies are generally reluctant to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear dictatorships—although they did so against Japan in 1945—the reverse is not true. Let us consider what might have happened if in 1982 a non-nuclear Britain had been facing an Argentina in possession of even just a few tactical nuclear bombs and the means of delivering them. Would we then have dared to use our conventional forces against its inferior conventional forces?
	The third military argument is that the United Kingdom has traditionally played a more important and decisive role in preserving freedom than other medium-sized democracies have been able, or willing, to do. Democratic countries without nuclear weapons have little choice but either to declare themselves neutral and hope for the best or to rely on the nuclear umbrella of their powerful allies. The UK is a nuclear power already and is also much harder to defeat by conventional means than many other democracies because of our physical separation from the continent.

Paul Flynn: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for every independent country in the world to possess nuclear weapons?

Julian Lewis: Absolutely not. I am saying that those countries that do not have nuclear weapons already often have other reasons that make it difficult to defend their borders, whereas, fortunately, we find it easier to do so because of our physical separation from the continent.
	The fourth argument is that our prominence as the principal ally of the United States, our strategic geographical position—to which I have just referred—and the fact that we are obviously the junior partner might tempt an aggressor to risk attacking us separately. Given the difficulties in overrunning the UK with conventional forces in comparison with our more vulnerable allies, an aggressor could be tempted to use one or more mass destruction weapons against us on the assumption that the United States would not respond on our behalf. Even if that assumption were false, the attacker would find out his mistake only when it was too late for all concerned. An independently controlled British nuclear deterrent massively reduces the prospect of such a fatal miscalculation.
	The fifth of the military arguments is that no quantity of conventional forces can compensate for the military disadvantage that faces a non-nuclear country in a war
	against a nuclear-armed enemy. The atomic bombing of Japan is especially instructive—not only because the Emperor was forced to surrender, but also because of what might have happened under the reverse scenario. If Japan had developed atomic bombs in the summer of 1945 and the allies had not, a conventional allied invasion to end the war would have been out of the question.

Caroline Lucas: I want to follow on from the question from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and press the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on the logic of his argument. How can it be right for us to claim that we should have nuclear weapons, yet lecture every other country against trying to acquire them? If we are saying that the UK depends on nuclear weapons to be safe, does it not logically follow that every other country has the right to make the same argument?

Julian Lewis: The answer to that is catered for by the point I made earlier: it is not the weapons we have to fear but the nature of the regimes that have them. I have no desire to lecture other democracies on whether or not they should have nuclear weapons, as that is a question for them and it is about whether they feel they can afford to do that. It does not bother me if democracies have nuclear weapons, but I do reserve the right to lecture dictatorships, and preferably to try to thwart, baulk and deter them from having such weapons, because they are the threat, not the weapons themselves.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Julian Lewis: I will give way, but it will be for the last time as otherwise I will be in danger of taking too much time. [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in resuming his seat.
	I wish briefly to make four political points. The first political argument is that when people are asked whether it is safer for this country to continue to possess nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them, a large majority of the population consistently take the view that we should do so and that it would be unwise and dangerous to renounce them unilaterally. We can ask different poll questions that seem to point to a different answer, but when that question is asked, the answer is surprisingly consistent.
	The second political argument is that in the 1980s, under cold war conditions, two general elections demonstrated the toxic effect of one-sided disarmament proposals on a party’s prospects of gaining power. The third argument is that it was and remains widely believed—this refers to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) a few moments ago—that the nuclear stalemate of the cold war enabled all-out conflict between the majors powers to be avoided for 50 years, despite their mutual hostility and in contrast to what happened in those many regional theatres where communists and their enemies could and did fight without fear of nuclear escalation. The final political argument is that the ending of the east-west confrontation has not altered the balance of public opinion on this question. First, that is because a danger could easily re-emerge of a reversion to a confrontation of that sort. Secondly, it is because even today there are unpleasant
	regimes, such as Iran’s, on the point of acquiring nuclear weapons and some, such as North Korea’s, that have already done so.
	The role of our strategic nuclear force remains what it has always been: to deter any power armed with mass destruction weapons from using them against us, in the belief, true or false, that nobody would retaliate on our behalf. The use of our deterrent consists of its preventive effect on the behaviour of our enemies. The actual launching of a Trident missile would mark the failure of deterrence and would presuppose that a devastating attack had already been inflicted on our country.
	Because strategic nuclear deterrence is largely irrelevant to the current counter-insurgency campaigns with which the British Army has been involved, some senior Army officers have been suggesting that we must choose between fighting “the war” of the present and insuring against the more conventional prospect of state-versus-state conflict in the future. I say that that choice is unacceptable, and that the underlying message that the era of high-intensity, state-on-state warfare is gone for good is a dangerous fallacy. Every sane individual hopes that such warfare will never return, but to rely on that in the face of past experience would be extremely foolhardy. The lesson of warfare in the 20th century, repeated time and again, was that when conflicts broke out they usually took their victims by surprise. Obvious examples are: the failure to anticipate the first world war; the follies of the “10-year rule” from 1919 to 1932; and the entirely unanticipated attacks on Israel in 1973, the Falklands in 1982, Kuwait in 1990 and the United States in 2001. Conversely, and on a brighter note, the speed with which the Soviet empire unravelled from 1989 left even its sternest critics largely nonplussed.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Lewis: I will not, because I am about to finish. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	Our current counter-insurgency campaigns are very important indeed, but they cannot be compared with battles for the very survival of the United Kingdom homeland. Such existential threats confronted us twice in the past 100 years and, if international relations deteriorate, they could easily confront us again.
	My final remark concerns the alternatives. I can see only three possible alternatives to renewing Trident other than getting rid of the nuclear deterrent completely. The first is that suggested by the Liberal Democrats of putting cruise missiles on Astute class submarines. I have said in the past and say again that that would be more expensive and less effective, would put the submarine at risk because of the shorter range of the missiles, which would bring the submarine closer to shore, and could start world war three by accident because no one would be sure whether the launched missile had a conventional or nuclear warhead. Apart from that, it is a great idea.
	The second alternative is to come off continuous at sea deterrence, to put the nuclear deterrent on stand-by and to say that we will reactivate it if things get worse. That is an extremely dangerous suggestion as having a part-time deterrent is probably as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, having no deterrent at all.
	The final suggestion is that we could perhaps combine our deterrent with that of the French and therefore have fewer submarines. All I can say about that is that our deterrent is strongly connected with the excellent working relationship we have with the United States, which would not admit of such a solution.
	I hope that I have given people plenty of food for thought. We have an hour and three quarters left and I very much look forward to hearing both sides of the argument in the time that remains.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on obtaining this debate. He knows that we have disagreed on this subject for decades and nothing has changed today.
	One of the questions that is never adequately addressed in such debates is why people believe, as the hon. Gentleman does, that there could be a nuclear threat uniquely directed at Britain. The 2006 White Paper that argued for a continuation of Trident described three threat scenarios: the re-emergence of a major nuclear threat; new states acquiring nuclear capability; and state-sponsored nuclear terrorism. On the first scenario of the re-emergence of a major nuclear threat, can anyone think of a plausible reason why a future Russia, having enjoyed the fruits of capitalism and democracy, albeit that it is limited, would threaten to attack the UK and just the UK? On the contrary, Russia’s interests depend on a peaceful and prosperous Europe.
	The second scenario is the potential threat from new states acquiring nuclear weapons, and Iran is the country most frequently cited. Embroiled as it is in middle east politics with a nuclear-armed Israel on one side and a nuclear-armed Pakistan on the other, Iran’s ambitions are regional. Condemnation of Iran might unite us all, but that is no reason for not asking why on earth Iran would uniquely target the UK.
	The third scenario, sponsored nuclear terrorism, deserves the closest attention. The White Paper explains how deterrence should work. It states:
	“We make no distinction between the means by which a state might choose to deliver a nuclear warhead…whether by missile or sponsored terrorists”
	and goes on to say that a state identified as the source of the material could expect a proportionate response. The threat of retaliation must be credible for deterrence to work, so how will we determine which is the sponsoring country? Remembering George Bush’s conviction that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, we will not be relying on politicians. No, the nuclear material will be sent to the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston to determine where it came from. A decision will then have to be taken.
	Let me remind members of Trident’s power. The Hiroshima bomb killed more than 100,000 people and injured thousands more. Just one Trident submarine could target up to 48 cities, with each warhead having eight times the effect of the Hiroshima bomb. Does anyone believe that in the cold light of day, after the Aldermaston analysis, a British Government would give the order for nuclear retaliation which would wipe out a nation of innocent people and leave an environmental legacy for many generations? This is not a credible threat.
	In my view not one of those three scenarios stands up to scrutiny, but they share a further fundamental flaw. The hon. Member for New Forest East seems to forget that in reality Trident is assigned to NATO. Its purpose is not to deter a unique threat to the UK. Does anyone honestly believe that the UK could use its nuclear weapons unilaterally? Of course not.
	In the world we now inhabit the greatest threats to the UK are climate change, international terrorism, cyber attack, global economics, health epidemics and competition for scarce resources. It is received wisdom that every one of these challenges can be addressed only by international co-operation, the building of trust, diplomacy, peacemaking and development. In all these fields the UK under successive Governments has made a positive contribution.
	There are far better ways to protect the people of these islands, and in an age of austerity there are far, far better ways to spend the £25 billion capital and the £2.5 billion annual costs of the Trident programme. When our conventional forces—of course we need them, and I have never been a pacifist—are so stretched, when our hospitals, fire stations and police stations are closing, where is our real security? Not in Trident. It is an obscene waste of the public’s money and of our precious skills and resources, which we desperately need to put this country back on its feet. We need to face the truth. British nuclear weapons have no utility. The scenarios for use are not plausible, and if Trident cannot be used, it cannot deter.

Sheryll Murray: I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring that we have this important debate today. Members will know of my special interest in the Royal Navy, as the mother of a serving Royal Naval officer, although my daughter assures me that she has no desire to serve aboard one of the four Vanguard class submarines.
	I am pleased that the Government are committed to maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent. The Government have also approved the initial gate investment, and selected the submarine design for the successor nuclear deterrent. Contracts have been signed for the first 18 months of work on the assessment phase of the successor submarine programme.
	Trident has provided a massive amount of employment for my constituents in South East Cornwall. Repair, refuelling and refit of the Vanguard class submarines is carried out in the D154 submarine support facilities at Devonport. The expertise and experience that Devonport now has should be utilised in any future programme. As a local county councillor at the time, I will never forget standing by the banks of the River Tamar in Mount Edgcumbe park, and watching the first Vanguard submarine edge her way around Drake’s island and into Devonport dockyard for refit. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the £350 million contract to refit and refuel the nuclear missile submarine HMS Vengeance had been awarded to Devonport in March last year. It will safeguard up to 2,000 jobs.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is also an important part of our skills base, and that if it were to go, we would see a significant diminution in our skills base?

Sheryll Murray: My hon. Friend is right.
	Maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent is essential. It sends the positive message that the UK is always prepared to respond instantly. There is the additional advantage of a moveable location, which assists security against any possible threats. The Government have excellent principles to abide by when considering nuclear arms. These include the use of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self- defence, a commitment to a minimum nuclear deterrent, and not to use any weapons contrary to international law. In other words, the highly powerful weapons would be used only as a last resort.
	It is important to retain nuclear weapons. I was concerned at our going into coalition with partners who stated in their last election manifesto that they would be saying no to like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. Given the reports in The Independent on 19 July last year, I am still concerned that they might scale down our vital nuclear deterrent in increasingly uncertain times.
	We need to remember that the UK’s nuclear deterrent contributes towards our collective security as part of NATO. If the UK did not have an at-sea deterrent, NATO’s collective security would be weakened, leaving the UK dependent on the US and France.

Damian Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that major wars tend to start when dictators believe that democracies are too weak to stand up to them? For democracies such as Britain to give up their nuclear deterrent would send out entirely the wrong message about how we seek to protect others and ourselves.

Sheryll Murray: That is exactly true.
	The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. We were awarded that position because our nation was one of the most powerful in the world following world war two. The UK’s membership of that exclusive club could be called into question without the continuation of our nuclear deterrent.
	A British at-sea nuclear deterrent has served us well for 60 years; it can and should serve us well into the future. I hope that refitting work on any future submarines will continue to provide much needed employment opportunities for my constituents in Saltash, Torpoint and throughout the rest of South East Cornwall.

Paul Flynn: There are two mindsets in this debate: there are those on the other side who are locked in the permafrost of the fear of cold war thinking and there are those who have hope for a better and safer world.
	The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned the 1980s. I vividly recall what the historian E. P. Thompson said at that dangerous time, when the world had enough nuclear weapons to kill humanity
	57 times over and we were in deadly peril because the geriatric fingers on the nuclear buttons belonged to Andropov, who was on a life support machine and virtually dead from the neck down, and to President Reagan, who was dead from the neck up.
	The likelihood of a nuclear war does not come from design, plans or escalation but from accidents. What the hon. Member for New Forest East, who introduced the debate, is arguing—there is no denying it—is for every country in the world to have its own nuclear insurance and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
	Things are changing. George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn, the four titans of American foreign policy, have all called for a world free of nuclear weapons and so has their splendid President. That gives a new momentum to the idea and hope that have become the centre of the policy debate—“They are the past and we are the future on this.”
	Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), I have repeatedly asked for anyone to give a plausible future scenario in which nuclear weapons could be used independently by the United Kingdom. There is no such scenario. We are carrying on being comfortable with the policies of the past. We should go back to the vision of previous Governments. In 1968, a UK Foreign Affairs Minister urged the United Nations to sign up to the newly negotiated non-proliferation treaty. He promised United Kingdom support and added:
	“It will, therefore, be essential to follow the treaty up quickly with further disarmament measures”.
	That was 45 years ago. There was a clear vision and hope of declining stocks of nuclear weapons throughout the world.
	The continued possession of nuclear weapons of mass destruction has a pernicious effect on our economy, with resources that could have been invested in research for the NHS, in education or improving our environment being squandered on high-tech killing machines.
	Coming into the House today, I met a former Member—a distinguished Committee Chairman who stood down at the last election—and told him what we were doing today. He said, “That was the most difficult decision. I needed a Whip behind me with an arm lock to get me into the Lobby to vote for Trident”, and the Whip had told him beforehand, “I don’t believe in it either.” Ministers give the party line and the deterrence fiction when they are at the Dispatch Box, but we see a remarkable turnaround when they stand down and have an epiphany. Last Friday, Michael Portillo said that Trident was
	“completely past its sell-by date”,
	and added:
	“It is neither independent, nor is it any kind of deterrent because we face enemies like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, who cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons...I reached the view after I was defence secretary.”
	So we have nonsense when they are in power, when they can do something, and the truth comes out with their realisation afterwards. Why is good sense invisible to politicians in office but monumentally obvious outside office?
	However, there is a glimmer of hope. Even our own Prime Minister is perhaps approaching a moment when he will change. Last October, he said that
	“if we are to have a nuclear deterrent, it makes sense to ensure we have something that is credible and believable”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 319.]
	Trident is neither credible nor believable. It undermines our credentials on non-proliferation, which is the best hope for a safe future. Its replacement should be cancelled, and then we could use the existing stocks of weapons of mass destruction—

Adam Afriyie: We should be proud of our role in the non-proliferation treaty and the fact that the nuclear deterrent has helped us to avoid wars in the past and is an insurance policy for the future. The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing for unilateral disarmament. In that scenario, which other country would disarm because we had disarmed?

Paul Flynn: I am not arguing for unilateral disarmament because it is not a practical possibility; I do not believe that it is attainable. When the hon. Gentleman intervened I was about to say that we can use the weapons we have as part of our bargaining to achieve disarmament and to make the nuclear non-proliferation treaty a practical one. How can we say to other countries, “You can’t have nuclear weapons but we’re insisting on ours”? That way forward will not be possible.
	The problem is the return of the mindset that our country is somehow very special. We are going back to the 19th-century view when we had an empire, insisting that we are powerful and determine world peace. That is a very damaging view. We saw it this week in relation to the fact that we have to join almost every war that comes along. It was said here on Monday that by joining the war in the state of Mali, even if there is no mission creep we have already exposed ourselves to the possibility of terrorist attacks. That was pooh-poohed by Ministers, but the attack has happened, a life has been lost, and others are under threat. That is the position we are in.
	To some, Trident is a virility status symbol; to others, it is a comfort blanket. The Foreign Secretary of the moment will often say that we have to have it because the UK must punch above its weight. Punching above our weight means spending beyond our interests and dying beyond our responsibilities.

John Baron: Most Members will be aware of this, but for the record I should like to state that I firmly believe in our nuclear deterrent. In this uncertain world where countries that are not necessarily friendly to the west have nuclear weapons, it is an unfortunate fact of life that we need them as well to guarantee Britain’s safety. However, that does not stop us also working towards arms reduction. When President Obama launched his global zero initiative, I very much welcomed it. We also owe a debt of thanks to the Royal Navy and our Vanguard submariners, who are always on patrol, for safeguarding the country and providing the essential British contribution to NATO.
	I want to suggest that our commitment to our nuclear deterrent should not just be about the current capability and future plans. There is a legacy from the dawn of our
	deterrent that we have still not yet fully recognised. We have to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to another group of people, who also deserve our recognition and thanks, without whom Britain would never have joined the top tier of nuclear powers. They are, of course, our nuclear test veterans.
	In the 1950s and 1960s, in the largest tri-service operation since the D-day landings, 20,000 service personnel participated in British nuclear weapon tests in the south Pacific and Australia. These men’s service was unique. When they took part, the science was largely unknown. Pre-test precautions were primitive and inadequate and failed to protect individuals fully from the effects of heat, blast shock and ionising radiation. Many veterans believe that their health was adversely affected by those tests, a view substantiated by scientific research undertaken in New Zealand by Professor Rowland that was peer-reviewed and accepted by the then New Zealand Government.
	Some years ago, following an inquiry from a constituent, I became involved with the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and I am now its patron. After a long campaign, the BNTVA and I succeeded in persuading the Ministry of Defence to undertake a health needs analysis of all surviving veterans. It showed that 84% of them believed that their main health condition was caused by radiation. If anybody thinks that that was an easy task and analysis to accomplish, they have not dealt with the MOD, but I thank it for taking that on.

Kevan Jones: It was me.

John Baron: To a certain extent, yes.
	Many helpful, practical measures are now being introduced as a result—for example, small but important things such as markers denoting veteran status on NHS records.
	Following the success of the health needs analysis, the BNTVA and I recently started a new campaign with three objectives. The first is to secure a lasting legacy for these men and their descendants. There is still much to learn about the effects of exposure to radiation and how we can continue to make nuclear energy safe. The second is to secure public recognition from the Prime Minister of our debt to these veterans. That could include recognition through the medal system by adding a clasp to the general service medal. The third is to establish a benevolent fund courtesy of Government, the suggested figure being £25 million. This would support atomic veterans and, more importantly, their descendants, who have also suffered medical setbacks that can be attributed to their fathers’ exposure.

Madeleine Moon: I am very pleased to hear the hon. Gentlemen’s speech and endorse every word he has spoken. I am a member of the group that he has set up and I, too, have been horrified to hear from my constituents about the effects on grandchildren as a result of the tests in which the veterans took part. He is absolutely right: we must not forget the part that those veterans and their families continue to play.

John Baron: I thank the hon. Lady for her support; it is much appreciated.
	The Government may say that £25 million is an awful lot of money in these austere times.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Baron: If I am allowed a second intervention that will add another minute to my speech, then by all means.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was pleased to put in place the health study, against the opposition of a lot of the civil service, when I was a Defence Minister. A generous settlement proposal was put to the lawyers—I got the Treasury to agree to it—but it was rejected. That was an opportunity missed for veterans to get some compensation.

John Baron: I recognise the part that the hon. Gentleman played in the health needs analysis. However, let us be absolutely clear about a confusion that is all too readily accepted by the MOD: the BNTVA has never participated in the legal cases that some individual veterans have brought. That is a vital distinction to make and I ask the House to take it on board.
	Although £25 million sounds like a lot of money, we should set it in the context of how other nuclear countries have treated their veterans. The US gives each veteran £47,000 plus a further £47,000 for any secondary attributable illness. No causal link is required between the cancer suffered by the veteran and the fact that they were there. If they were at the tests and they have cancer, they automatically get the compensation. Canada pays more than £15,000 in addition to monies from pensions and compensation legislation. The Isle of Man makes an ex gratia payment of £8,000 to any resident test veteran.
	In all three cases, the service personnel in question have access to free health care provision. The MOD argument that veterans in this country have access to the NHS therefore does not stack up. The fact remains that this country’s nuclear test veterans are almost at the bottom of the scale in the international comparisons going by how they are treated by this country. I hope that the House will accept that that needs to be put right. Against those comparisons, the campaign for £25 million, which works out at about £6,000 per veteran, is modest.
	I should at this stage repeat what I said to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and make it clear that the BNTVA has never participated in the legal challenges brought by some veterans.
	We have had several meetings at the MOD with successive Ministers for veterans. I wrote to the Government in November to set out the details of our campaign. Despite chase-ups, I still await a response. No doubt the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), will carry that message back to the MOD. Meanwhile, I have written to all Back Benchers requesting their support for our campaign for recognition. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned, many have been kind enough to write back positively. I will be taking the matter further in due course.
	In conclusion, as the Government are on the verge of commissioning the next iteration of our nuclear deterrent, it is right that we remember those who first created it and finally, after so long, repay the debt that we owe them.

Gerald Kaufman: I apologise to the House for the fact that I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate, due to a prior commitment. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me.
	After Labour was massacred in the 1983 and 1987 general elections because of its advocacy, under a charming but useless leader, for unilateral nuclear disarmament, I was appointed by Neil Kinnock to review foreign and defence policy for the Labour party. As a result of that review, Labour became eligible for re-election and was re-elected at long last in 1997.
	If Britain did not have nuclear weapons, I would not advocate our acquiring them, but history has bestowed them upon us. Let us not forget that it was a Labour Government in time of peace who decided that the United Kingdom should acquire nuclear weapons.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reviewing the history of the decision making. Would he say that the conclusion that he came to was about politics or policy?

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman’s question requires a yes or a no, but it is not as clear as that. We are prisoners of history. That history decided that a medium-sized power that was pretty well bankrupt at the end of the second world war should possess nuclear weapons. We are a medium-sized power, and, for better or worse—it is worse in many ways—we would not be listened to any more than anybody else, including Italy, Spain, Greece or Germany, without the unwanted legacy of possession of nuclear weapons.
	This is not a question of how we acquired them; the fact is that we are in possession of them. Owing to that fact, unlike those other western European countries and other countries in different parts of the world, we are eligible to participate in international nuclear disarmament. That is essential. We should take into account that it is 58 years since the end of the war. It is remarkable how few other countries have acquired nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have acquired them, but even Iran—an aggressive and objectionable power with foul internal policies—has not yet done so. We have a voice on the international front that exists to try to prevent nuclear proliferation. If we did not by accident of history possess nuclear weapons, nobody would listen to us on nuclear disarmament. For that reason, we should use the result of that accident of history to take part in international negotiations to reduce, and eventually to eliminate, all nuclear weapons owned by any country.
	Incidentally, I have a great affection for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), but Reagan offered the Soviet Union a major internationally agreed nuclear disarmament. He might not have been the greatest President in the world, but at the same time, being there and having what he had, he was able to make the offer. It is deeply unfortunate that the Soviet Union did not grab that offer.
	That being so, I say clearly that I do not want nuclear weapons; I am not happy we have got them, but we have got them. Divesting ourselves of our nuclear weapons would be regarded by many as an act of self-indulgence.
	We can use our possession of them to persuade others not to use them—there is always a danger that India, Pakistan and Israel will use them—and to take part in international negotiations to reduce and abolish them. That status comes to us by chance and by history. We should use our status.

Nick Harvey: The UK must decide by the middle of 2016—just three years from now—whether to proceed with a like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent. I do not believe we need a further generation of nuclear weapons based on the scale we thought we needed in 1980 at the height of the cold war, and I do not believe we can afford to have one. I do not believe that national security assessment and strategy suggest we need it, or that our defence posture can stand it—our posture would become lop-sided if we were to commit to another generation on the same scale. In addition, I believe that the opportunity cost of committing so much money and manpower, and such a large proportion of our equipment budget, would have a malign effect on our general military capability.
	In 1980, at the height of the cold war, we had a known nuclear adversary—the Soviet Union. It had British targets in its target set, and we had Soviet targets in our target set. There was a logic—I do not say that I necessarily subscribe to it hook, line and sinker—to having continuous at-sea deterrence, because we had a known adversary. Today’s circumstances are very different. At that time, we computed that the only way to fulfil the classic definition of deterrence—to put into one’s adversary’s mind the certainty that we were capable of inflicting damage that would be unacceptable to him—was to maintain the capability of overcoming Moscow’s nuclear defences and being able to flatten that city. Moscow was where the Soviet elite hung out and the only things that they valued, and to which they considered damage would be unacceptable, were themselves and their regime. The Russia of the 21st century, for all its imperfections, is very different. It is perfectly possible to deter modern Russia from a nuclear attack on us by a variety of other means, and there are other ways of inflicting on them damage that they would consider unacceptable.

Kevan Jones: Why then have the Russians recently upgraded their anti-ballistic missile protection in and around Moscow?

Nick Harvey: I did not say that they would be willing to see Moscow flattened—most certainly they would not. I am saying that there are other ways of inflicting damage on Russia that it would consider unacceptable.
	I mentioned that there will be a vast opportunity cost to be paid if we decide to commit these funds, which, let us refresh our memories, in today’s money will be approximately £25 billion to £30 billion on the capital investment in a further generation of submarines. On top of that, we have to factor in the running costs of a nuclear deterrent on this scale for 30 or more years of through-life costs—more than £3 billion a year in today’s money. Beginning to total that out and factoring in decommissioning at the end, we are talking about an expenditure of more than £100 billion. We need to look closely at whether that is justified in the context of the
	size of our defence budget, and what we are able to make available for other forms of defence and security in an increasingly dangerous and changing world.

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend has started to talk about 20, 30, 40 years ahead. Would he like to describe the strategic context in which we might be operating a nuclear deterrent in 20, 30, 40 years’ time, or indeed find ourselves operating without one? What is it going to be like then?

Nick Harvey: The truth of the matter is that none of us knows. If we retain a nuclear deterrent of any description and any scale, it is an insurance policy against the unknown. I am saying that the current nuclear deterrent is scaled specifically to overcome the threat that we believed the Soviet Union posed in 1980. As we look to an unknown future over the course of this century, we have to decide what proportion of our defence spend and effort should go into this one part of our defence livery, and the opportunity cost of doing that.

Mike Gapes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we move to some form of cruise missile-based nuclear weapons system, that would be destabilising internationally and positively dangerous?

Nick Harvey: I am waiting for the Trident alternatives review, which is being conducted by the Cabinet Office and is looking at exactly those sorts of issues. When it reports, I look forward to coming back and debating them with the hon. Gentleman. As a considered study of exactly these sorts of issues is nearing its conclusion at the moment, the time to debate those details will be when the report has been published.
	I want to look at the pressures that will face Defence Ministers in the years when the large capital expenditure that I have described would have to be spent. In the same period of time, we will have to put the joint strike fighter aircraft on to the two new aircraft carriers and build the Type 26 frigate. Whatever the next generation of remotely piloted air systems and whoever we do that with, it will fall in the same time frame. Bearing in mind that HMS Ocean is due to leave service in 2018, any future generation of amphibious shipping will have to be paid for in exactly that time frame; and whatever we equip the Army with for the 21st century—it has been the poor relation in the equipment budget for many years—and bearing in mind how little seems to be left of the original future rapid effect system, as conceived by the previous Government, again, it will fall in that time frame. If we decide to give the nuclear deterrent a bye and think it has some magic claim on the money, an opportunity cost will have to be paid across the rest of our defence systems.
	I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) talking quite rightly about the part that Plymouth plays in the nuclear deterrent, but I put it to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) that if we commit all our money to one system, the opportunity cost will be felt above all else by the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy might fight—and win—to keep the nuclear deterrent on its current scale, but the price will be paid in the scale of the conventional surface Navy, which, in my view, is already trying to do far too much with far too little.
	The UK has a sensible range of military capabilities at the moment, and with that we can take part in international operations. We have global interests and ambitions, and uniquely we have the will to use military power when we need to in pursuit of those interests. Ours is still the fourth largest defence budget in the world. Our place on the top table does not depend on our being a nuclear power; we are there in our own right, and besides which any change to the line-up of the UN Security Council would require the UK’s assent, which we could simply withhold.
	We must make a contribution to disarmament. That is an obligation we have under the non-proliferation treaty. We must wait and see whether the Trident alternatives review can find another system that offers us a way of sustaining a credible deterrent. It would not have the same capability, but there might be a way of doing something at a lesser cost. We should keep an open mind about trying to do that.

John Woodcock: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey). I am glad that he did not repeat his assertion that the world would be a better place if my constituents were sacked and sent to the Bahamas with the money from the deterrent in their back pockets. It is also good to be back speaking here again for the first time since I banged my head. All will be fine, but if at any point, Mr Speaker, I look confused and ask what all these people are doing in my bedroom, please intervene and reassure me—no, I am not that bad.
	The devastation of nuclear war would be an affront to nature itself, which is why I have said on many occasions that, if we could genuinely be confident that the UK disarming would make this horror less likely, that should come ahead of even the many thousands of jobs that the industry supports in my constituency and across the country. I am proud that the last Labour Government shifted Britain’s nuclear policy for the first time towards the aim of a global zero, but we should advance non-proliferation in a way that will maintain the security of the UK and, most of all, in a way that will make a nuclear catastrophe less likely, not more so.
	That is one reason why I am wary of a party that up until now has been grossly irresponsible on the question of nuclear weapons and has suddenly be given access to the levers of power. It is one thing to be a fringe concern, making up positions that sound good on the doorstep. “When money is tight”, say the Liberal Democrats”, “Let’s have a mini-deterrent”—the nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on the Astute class submarines already being built in my constituency. “They would cost less”, they say, “providing more money for schools and hospitals, and they would be much less destructive than those awful Trident missiles to which the main parties are wedded. Vote for us!”
	If that policy becomes a genuine possibility that could be enacted by a party of government, it will be put under scrutiny in the run-up to an election and its fundamental weaknesses exposed. The apparent savings evaporate when considered against the enormous cost of procuring new missiles—probably without a cost subsidy from the Americans this time—building new warheads from scratch, making considerable adaptations
	to the Astutes and writing off the £3 billion that will already have been spent on the successor by then. When the operational capacity of this “mini-deterrent” is scrutinised, we will come up against the points that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made so adeptly in opening this debate. All in all, this option is not a winner.

Bob Stewart: It is really delightful to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. The problem with using cruise missiles is precisely that they are vulnerable. The whole point of deterrence is that there should be an invulnerable system. Cruise missiles are vulnerable, which destroys the concept.

John Woodcock: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Most of all, such cruise missiles are indistinguishable on an enemy radar from conventional cruise missiles, raising the chilling prospect that in the confusion of battle, a conventional attack by the UK could trigger nuclear retaliation against British cities.

Sheryll Murray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we took up this idea, we could see another tuition fees scenario?

John Woodcock: I certainly know what the hon. Lady means—I am reluctant to compare tuition fees to the ultimate deterrent, but in political terms she is absolutely right.
	To those looking to the latest review into the future of the deterrent and hoping that a major—and needed—push on global non-proliferation could make it possible for the UK effectively to wait and see before committing to renew, I put two questions. First, is it really realistic to expect a breakthrough within the next few years in global security—involving not just the former Soviet Union and America, but the whole world—that would give us sufficient hope that a hostile nuclear power could not plausibly threaten the United Kingdom 20, 30 or 40 years hence? That is the judgment that we have to make now. Secondly, what would be the industrial and financial consequences of a further delay, on top of the already significant increase in cost caused by the coalition Government’s delay, which enabled them to kick the main gate decision on a successor into the next Parliament?
	Industrially, we must think in terms of jobs now and over coming decades. Let us not forget that we are talking not just about 5,000 or 6,000 jobs in Barrow shipyard, critical to the regional economy though they are, but about the 4,000 jobs and rising in the nuclear submarine supply chain, stretching right across the country. We must also consider the UK’s prized capacity to manufacture submarines of any kind. We rightly say that, for security reasons, we should not procure from abroad, but if we leave another gap in production like the one in the 1990s—the Astute programme is still suffering from the attempt to recover from that—we could lose those highly honed skills from these shores for ever.
	Of course we should always examine new evidence, but so far all credible evidence has pointed to the same place: that like-for-like renewal is the most effective—and
	the most cost-effective—way of maintaining the UK’s minimum independent deterrent and that the decision to renew should be kept at arm’s length from our profound moral obligation to pursue a world free from the threat of nuclear war.

Crispin Blunt: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) back in his place. He put the case extremely well on behalf of Barrow-in-Furness for the current policy remaining in place and being renewed. I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on securing it. We have been brothers in arms on defence, one way or another, for quite a long time. He has really distinguished himself on these issues, and I congratulate him on encouraging the Backbench Business Committee to hold this debate. His position is in the ascendancy and it speaks to his intellectual depth and courage that he is prepared to put his ideas to the test in the Chamber. I also want to congratulate the former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), on his contribution to starting, and initially leading, the review of the alternatives to Trident. We owe it to ourselves to think rather more deeply about this matter than we have done in the past.
	It was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) explaining how the Labour party had moved to its present position. Those on the Opposition Front Bench are no longer allowed to think about this issue, because the politics of 1983 were so appallingly scarring. Labour Front-Benchers are now frozen in a position in which any sense of doubt about the continuation of the present policy would be seen as politically catastrophic, and they are not allowed to go there. The only expressions of doubt that we will hear today will come from the old stagers of the 1980s who fought and lost the battles on disarmament at the time. I believe that it was quite proper that they lost those arguments.
	We are now in a completely new era, and we owe it to ourselves to review the policy properly, and as openly as we can. That review is now being carried out under the leadership of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and it will report to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, but I am concerned that there has been no undertaking to publish it, and that there will therefore be no opportunity for us to examine the costings.

Nick Harvey: If my hon. Friend studies the coalition mid-term review document that was published last week, he will see that, for the first time, there is an explicit commitment to publish the review. I understand that the review will be concluded in March, and that publication will probably be in May.

Crispin Blunt: I am delighted to be corrected on that point.
	This is the hub of the issue. We are being invited to engage in an insurance policy that is going to last about 40 years and cost between 5% and 6% of our defence budget. Will that insurance policy ever be cashed in? My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) would probably suggest that it is being cashed in all the time, owing to the fact that it exists. In that sense, the deterrence is eternal.
	We need to get into the minds of the likely decision makers who might attack British interests in a way that would engage the use of our deterrent. We also need to get into the minds of our leaders who might then have to contemplate the use of the deterrent in response. There has been a change in the debate on how states conduct these affairs. The question of whether it would be a matter for the International Criminal Court if a leader chose to eviscerate millions of wholly innocent people in pursuit of their state’s policy is one that ought to engage us, particularly as we no longer live in a bipolar world consisting of one alliance taking a position against a competing ideology. The world has changed.
	I do not pretend to have an answer to this question, but I want the House to have as much data as possible so that we can begin to make as informed a decision as possible. It is the position of the Government—and, I believe, of those on the Opposition Front Bench—that paying a premium of 5% to 6% of the defence budget for the 40 next years would be worth it because of what it would buy. Well, would 10% or 15% be worth it? How solid are the figures of 5% to 6%? Why should that cost be coming out of the defence budget, given the cost of the equipment that is going to the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are carrying out the other tasks that we ask them to undertake? Should the cost be found from outside the main defence vote?

David Rutley: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Given the importance of the deterrent, does he share my concern about what a potential yes vote to Scottish independence would mean, and does he share my hope that the Scottish people will see this as another reason for staying part of the United Kingdom?

Crispin Blunt: It could work the other way. It could provide a reason why the Scottish people would vote to leave the United Kingdom, as they could then dispose of having to host the deterrent and of the threat of counter-measures for the people living immediately around the area.
	I would like to be exposed to more data about the vulnerability of the future submarine systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) intervened to say that what was required of the system was that it be invulnerable. Well, I do not know how he can predict the efficacy of surveillance systems in 40 years’ time, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex said that we have no idea what the international situation will be in 40 years’ time. It is perfectly possible that satellite observations and surveillance of the sea would make it pretty straightforward to trace a submarine in 40 years’ time. I do not know, but I would be grateful for the best data available so that we can test whether or not we will need to spend this eye-watering amount of money on something that will do what it says on the tin, to use a current phrase, in 40 years’ time.
	I believe that we are owed the results of the review instigated by the hon. Member for North Devon. This House needs to be informed about these questions. We need to understand where we are through a cost-benefit analysis of the replacement Vanguard submarine system with Trident missiles, which will mean getting the data on the re-engineering of the Trident missiles and the
	new engines they might need during the course of their next deployment, alongside an understanding of issues around the use of tactical nuclear warheads on cruise missiles. In any scenario planning I did when I was engaged as a special adviser in defence and foreign affairs, the only conceivable situation I could see for using the missiles was for taking out pinpoint targets of rogue states or rogue terrorist groups equipped with missiles that had the capability to launch weapons of mass destruction at us—and for that we would want a small pinpoint weapon, not a strategic weapon that would wreak massive and unacceptable collateral damage in the process.
	I am extremely grateful for the debate and for the review, and I think we should keep an open mind until we can reach a proper decision on this matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am looking to each of the two Front-Bench speakers to take no longer than 10 minutes —20 minutes in total—if we are to accommodate Back-Bench Members who wish to speak. I am afraid that for them, the time limit will have to be reduced to four minutes from now on. My apologies to colleagues, but I am keen to get people in and I know the Front Benchers will want to take account of that.

Kevan Jones: I start by paying tribute to members of our armed forces and their families for the work they do. In the context of this debate, I particularly commend members of the Royal Navy who work on our independent nuclear deterrent. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing this important debate about the cornerstone of our nation’s security.
	The security landscape today is both uncertain and unpredictable. New threats such as cyber-warfare and biological terrorism exist alongside the conventional threats. In response, we must have a broad, advanced equipment programme that enables us not only to detect, but to deter and tackle the whole spectrum of threats we face as a nation.
	We on the Labour Benches are clear that an independent nuclear deterrent is in our national interest. It has been argued, and it has been repeated today, that our nuclear deterrent was a cold war legacy. It is correct that many of the old divisions of the cold war have gone, but they have been replaced with new uncertainties: the recent unrest in Pakistan, advanced missile testing in North Korea and the intractable problem of Iran. Although it is impossible to predict the future, the one thing that is certain is that it is unpredictable. All that shows how important it is for the United Kingdom to retain an independent nuclear deterrent.
	In 2007, Parliament took the view—supported by the Labour Government of the day—that a submarine-based system with ballistic missiles provided for the minimum credible nuclear deterrent, and was the most-effective model to meet our strategic needs. It is also our stated objective to play an active and constructive role in international efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that a unilateralist posture would advance that goal.
	The United Kingdom is a proud and prominent signatory to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. That treaty has three pillars, through which we must view our nuclear deterrent: non-proliferation, disarmament, and facilitation of the peaceful use of nuclear technology. That is why I am proud that the last Labour Government reduced the size of the nuclear stockpile. We cut the number of operationally available warheads from 300 at the time of the 1998 strategic defence review to fewer than 160 by the time of the 2010 general election, reduced the number of warheads carried per submarine from 96 to 48, and withdrew the WE177 nuclear capability from service. I believe that it should be a cross-party priority for the UK to continue on that path towards nuclear disarmament, alongside our international allies.
	It is essential for our decisions on the future of the deterrent to be based on evidence and on what is in our national interest rather than on any political-party interest. We are therefore committed to examining any new evidence rigorously in order to establish whether there are alternatives to the conclusions of the last review in 2006. That examination must feature two priorities, capability and cost: they must be our guiding principles. We want the UK to have the minimum credible deterrent, in line with our national security needs and our international obligations, and we want to ensure that we achieve maximum value for money. All options must be examined, and we look forward to close examination of the Government’s review of alternatives. I consider that to be a responsible and rational approach.
	While we must insist on rigorous policy-making, we fear that the review is an exercise in Liberal Democrat and Conservative party management rather than the management of our national interest. We question the validity of a review that has lasted more than two years, and whose conclusions the Prime Minister rejected before it even began.
	The president of the Liberal Democrats says that he wants to make the review an election issue, so why is it being run from the Cabinet Office at the taxpayer’s expense? Can it have any credibility, given that the Liberal Democrats opted out of ministerial responsibility for defence and foreign affairs, and given that the person in charge of the review, the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) does not even have a pass allowing him to enter the MOD’s main building?
	The real test of the review, however, should be not whether it allows the Government parties to indulge in a strategy of differentiation, but whether it explores in sufficient detail and depth what is—as has already been explained—an inherently complex and technical subject. If it appears to promote an alternative as an end point in itself, it will have not just failed all those who seek a genuine debate, but punctured the Government’s claim to have credibility on this vital issue.
	There are a number of potential alternatives to the current nuclear deterrent, which I hope the review will explore. Let me briefly comment on each of them.
	The first option is an air-based system. It was considered to be the most costly option of all in the 2006 review, requiring the procurement of new aircraft, a new missile and new operating bases. In addition, its visibility would
	increase its vulnerability. The estimated cost of the second option—a land-based silo system—is double that of the current submarine-based system. It has also been questioned on strategic grounds, as it is immobile and unconcealable, and therefore vulnerable to attack. Any review would also need to address where the system would be located. I am not sure there would be many volunteers to have that based in their constituency. Thirdly, any consideration of a surface ship-based system would also need to cast aside doubts about vulnerability and detectability. Fourthly, the review will need to focus on a submarine-based system armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The costs of this option will need to be examined closely, including the cost of developing a new warhead independently from our US allies. Also, Astutes would have to be adapted or another platform would need to be procured, which could result in a lessening of our current hunter-killer capability. Concern has also been expressed that arming submarines with dual-use cruise missiles could prove escalatory during a crisis, as our enemies would not know whether the submarine was a conventional or nuclear-armed vessel.
	International factors must also be considered, such as compliance with the nuclear test-ban treaty, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the USA’s 2010 nuclear posture review. If we were to go down the cruise missile route, we would need more warheads in order to penetrate targets and it could be argued that that would break one of those treaties.
	I do not have time to cover every detail, but we do need to have a meaningful discussion—a function today’s debate is fulfilling. This is a delicate topic that sparks strong passions, even within parties. That is why an evidence-based approach free from political positioning is so important. We will consider the technical, military, security and financial issues, and look closely at all the details of the Government’s alternatives review. For Opposition Members, the facts that support our national security needs will always be our focus.

Philip Dunne: I welcome this opportunity to speak about such an important element of the nation’s defence capability, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for securing this debate and for making so many cogent arguments in his speech. The House has not debated the need for a strategic deterrent for some time, and it is right that we do so.
	I echo and welcome my hon. Friend’s strong support for the Government’s unwavering commitment to retain an operationally independent nuclear deterrent, based on Trident and operating on the basis of continuous at-sea posture. I also welcome the support of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).
	As many Members are aware, our continuous at-sea deterrence patrols under Operation Relentless have been operating without pause since 1969. It is the UK’s most enduring military operation. I pay tribute to the crews of our submarines and their families, and all the men and women, both military and civilian, whose support has been essential to this operation, and I thank them for their unwavering dedication.
	Whether we like it or not, we live in a nuclear age, and have done so since the first atomic weapons were tested in July 1945. We cannot put back the clock and un-invent nuclear weapons. Most of us in this House are not, as was alleged by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), locked in the permafrost of the cold war, but we do recall the bipolar stand-off between the west and the Soviet Union. They were dangerous and often tense times, but in contrast to the uncertainties of the present, the cold war years now, almost paradoxically, appear to have been more stable, as we knew then who our adversary was. We are now living in a period of increasing threat of nuclear weapons proliferation. Other states, not all well disposed towards us or our allies, located in highly unstable regions are on the verge of owning these weapons. That makes the current era far less predictable. It is a sobering fact that, although our nuclear arsenal, like those of our allies and Russia, has reduced significantly since the early 1990s, the reductions have not encouraged states that are seeking a nuclear weapon capability to cease their attempts to cross the nuclear threshold.
	In April 2009, President Obama said that
	“the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”
	I see no reason to disagree with the President’s remarks. We live in a perilous world. North Korea has tested nuclear devices and ballistic missiles, in defiance of the international community, and it maintains a threatening stance towards its neighbours in north-east Asia. Iran is determined to continue producing highly enriched uranium, in excess of any conceivable non-military need, and it continues to develop a ballistic missile capability and maintains a hostile stance towards both the west and many of its immediate neighbours. The actions of those countries reinforce my view that Britain needs a nuclear deterrent to protect us from nuclear coercion, nuclear blackmail and nuclear attack.
	NATO has been the bedrock of our defence and security since 1949. At a time when the United States—its main contributor—is shifting focus from the north Atlantic to the Pacific, a non-nuclear Britain would weaken an international organisation that makes a crucial contribution to global peace and security. Would the world be a better place with a weakened NATO—with a NATO that may become less certain of its role and purpose? I do not think it would.
	Given those circumstances, it would be an act of supreme folly to abandon unilaterally the nuclear deterrent that has served us, and our allies, well for more than half a century. To disarm unilaterally would send entirely the wrong signal. It would undermine our credibility as a reliable partner and NATO’s credibility as an alliance. NATO is a nuclear alliance, and its recently agreed new strategic concept makes it clear that our nuclear forces, including those based in Scotland, contribute to its overall deterrence and security.
	We share the vision of a world without nuclear weapons, but only if that is achieved through multilateral disarmament. We take the disarmament commitments of article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty very seriously. We therefore fully support multilateral nuclear disarmament, when the conditions are right. That is a long-term process which will take many years, although we have taken a leading role in arranging and participating in P5 conferences since 2010. We have already reduced the size of our deterrent considerably since the end of
	the cold war, and in the strategic defence and security review we committed to reducing it further, as has been identified by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). It will decrease from a stockpile of about 300 warheads in the mid-1990s to no more than 180 by the mid-2020s. Under SDSR 10 we undertook to reduce the number of operationally available warheads to no more than 120 by the mid-2020s. That means that we already have probably the smallest arsenal of the P5 powers, and are the only P5 power to rely on a single delivery system. Our disarmament credentials are second to none, yet all this progress has not been matched by emerging nuclear states. It is simply wishful thinking that any further UK disarmament would be a catalyst for disarmament elsewhere.
	It has sometimes been argued by hon. Members that we face new security threats in the 21st century for which the nuclear deterrent is not relevant, but nobody has ever claimed that nuclear weapons are an all-purpose deterrent. We have a wide range of capabilities to deal with the wide range of potential threats that we face.
	The fact remains that we cannot pick and choose which threats we should face. Not every capability is suitable for every threat and the nuclear deterrent is the only secure way to deter nuclear threats. In making clear to potential adversaries that they cannot infringe our vital interests without risk and in providing reassurance to our allies, our deterrent helps prevent major war and provides a backdrop that enables us to pursue a foreign policy that seeks to enhance international trust and security and to promote conflict resolution.
	The abandonment of the nuclear deterrent would deprive us of the means to counter the most extreme threats from adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction. It would leave us vulnerable to blackmail, coercion and attack from those adversaries. For all those reasons, I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Government to maintain a continuous submarine-based deterrent and to replace the current Vanguard class submarines when they leave service in the late 2020s.
	A continuous at-sea deterrent also has considerable diplomatic utility. Let us think of the impact, if we did not have continuous at-sea deterrence, of a decision the Prime Minister might have to make to provide an order to put an intermittent deterrent to sea. That act alone could exacerbate an already tense international situation. Operating the deterrent on an intermittent basis might well require additional conventional military assets to enable the deterrent to put to sea, assets that are not required in the routine of a continuous posture.
	By being continuously at sea, the deterrent maximises our political freedom of manoeuvre in crisis. A submarine-launched ballistic missile system offers invulnerability, range and endurance. All promote the credibility of this ultimate safeguard for national security. It is a permanent factor for a potential aggressor.
	Hon. Members have also charged that the renewal of the deterrent is an extravagant use of resources at a time of great financial stringency and fiscal uncertainty. The first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of the nation, its people and their vital interests. This Government do not and will not gamble with Britain’s national security. We recognise that people wish to be reassured that the money will be well spent and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)—it is a pleasure to see him in his place—rightly highlighted
	some of the reasons Trident is the most cost-effective delivery mechanism available within the necessary timescale. That is why the Government scrutinised the procurement programme for the successor to ensure value for money and will continue to submit it to rigorous scrutiny in the run-up to the main-gate investment decision in 2016. We are talking about maintaining a capability of service until the middle of the century and it is essential that we can protect the UK against future uncertainties that might arise 15 to 50 years from now. I challenge any advocate of unilateral disarmament to predict what threats we might face over that period.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Some time ago, I imposed a limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I am about to call the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), and if all nine hon. Members who wish to speak are to get in, nearer to three minutes is what is required. I am in the hands of the House and I know that the House will try to help itself.

Nick Brown: It is a pleasure to make a very short contribution to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) not only on having secured it, which is a triumph in itself, but on how he argued the case for Britain’s independent nuclear submarine-based deterrent. It was the strongest series of arguments that I have heard made in one place for the renewal of the Trident platform. I do not agree with those arguments, but they were strongly made and the hon. Gentleman drew together all the different points that can be made.
	Let me make two points back to the hon. Gentleman. First, we are purchasing something we cannot use, and secondly, we are doing it with money we have not got. They seem to me to be two pretty strong arguments to weigh in the balance. The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) referred to the cost and the impact on the defence budget. Frankly, we should think about the impact on the public finances more generally. We are in danger of sleepwalking into a commitment of some £80 billion to £100 billion, with a deployment cost of £1 billion a year, without properly discussing it in this place, so I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest East on having secured this short discussion.
	I ask all hon. Members in what conceivable circumstances in the world today they could envisage the United Kingdom taking the decision unilaterally to use nuclear weapons against another nation. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to envisage such circumstances. An independent nuclear deterrent does not address the security demands or the realities of international instability which the United Kingdom faces. This is not to argue that we do not face international threats in the 21st century. Of course we do. What I am arguing is that they are more complex and sophisticated and require a more intelligent response than a big 20th century bomb—a weapon of the cold war whose time, if it ever existed, has most certainly passed.
	International terrorism is not combated or deterred by an independent deterrent. Trident does not counter the ever increasing number of cyber attacks on our
	nation’s digital infrastructure. It does not address political, socio-economic or environmental injustices that lead to global instability. These are the pressing issues that the United Kingdom faces and we hamper our ability to deal with them by focusing our defence priorities and spending on a cold war weapons system.
	I am in favour of our membership of NATO. We make a strong contribution to the alliance and we should trust it and rely upon its possession collectively of a strategic deterrent, if there is an argument for the strategic deterrent at all.
	In summary, this is a weapons system that we cannot use. The cost is disproportionate to the hard-to-identify benefits and it makes no sense in terms of our alliance with other friendly nations, of our international obligations or even as a response to the security threats faced by the United Kingdom.

Mr Speaker: A model of pithiness, which I know the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will want to emulate or better.

Bob Stewart: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall be as quick as I can.
	I was a cold war warrior, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), and I spent many of my early years in Germany with tactical nuclear weapons. I also studied nuclear deterrence at university and I came to the conclusion that tactical nuclear weapons were too incredible for us ever to use. I was delighted when we got rid of them. That left strategic nuclear weapons.
	I believe that the strategic nuclear deterrent does deter, and for that reason we must keep it. It can work only if it is invulnerable. As far as we can tell, the most invulnerable system involves a submarine. That submarine is currently being renewed. I support the renewal of an independent nuclear deterrent because we have no idea what will happen in the future of our world, and when there is great risk I prefer to have an insurance policy that maintains the status quo.

Mike Gapes: Reference was made earlier in the debate to the period of the Reagan-Gorbachev Administrations. General Secretary Gorbachev in the 1980s called for a nuclear-free world by 2000. Remember that? Of course, the Soviet Union ended and the world we live in, as many speakers have commented, is much more complicated now than it was at that time. None of us knows where we will be in 30 or 40 years, and the decisions that are to be taken make assumptions about a future that we cannot predict.
	We have heard references in the debate also to the continuation of NATO. I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I have serious doubts whether in the next 20 or 30 years the United States will give Europe a global commitment of extended deterrence in the way it did at the height of the cold war.
	Nobody has so far mentioned China in the debate. China is modernising its military assets significantly. It has nuclear weapons. At some point this century it will
	become a global power with projection all round the world, not just within its own coasts and the seas off its coasts.
	If we are looking at the future of the world, I do not think any of us can be very confident about what the outcome will be. What we do know is that the non-proliferation regime is under serious threat, not just from countries such as North Korea, which have left the NPT, but from countries that are still within the NPT, such as Iran, and other countries that will follow any decision to weaponise a nuclear capability by the Iranians at some point. In 15 or 20 years’ time, there could be 10, 15 or 20 more countries with nuclear weapons. The world that we are going into requires international action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) mentioned the Labour party’s policy review in 1989. I was the secretary of that review, which changed our policy to deal with the realities that we were confronting at that time rather than the debate that had gone on theologically in the past.
	We now need to make renewed efforts, and I wish the Minister and shadow Front Benchers would talk a little more about what role we can play with our nuclear weapons in facilitating new international disarmament negotiations, because they are not happening now. Despite President Obama’s Prague speech in 2009, the vision of a nuclear-free world is blocked because the Russians are not interested so long as missile defence is on the agenda. There is the danger of a proliferation of warheads to overcome missile defence if it is ever deployed. I conclude there to give others a chance.

Bernard Jenkin: I commend the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who has just made a powerful contribution to the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for securing it. I congratulate the Minister on delivering a model speech, which in a short time went through all the key arguments that justify the Government’s spending the money.
	We need to lay more emphasis not just on how we might imagine the weapons system could be deployed but on the fact that it is in use every single day, shaping the global security environment that we enjoy today. It is no coincidence that the advent of nuclear weapons on the international scene has led to the longest period of peace among the superpowers and major powers of the world that we have ever seen.
	War between super-states is now unthinkable because of nuclear weapons. That is rather a good thing and certainly an argument for our maintaining our inherited role of acting as a major democratic, friendly, benign, positive influence in global affairs, with our international role enhanced by nuclear weapons.
	The issue is the sort of country that we are and that we want to continue to be. We are a country with global reach, global influence, global interests and the ability to enhance global security—not just for the world as a whole, but for the security of our own people.
	Were we, irresponsibly, simply to dispose of our nuclear capability, we would be upsetting a balance that we may not even understand. We are down to fewer than 200 nuclear warheads. China, which has been
	mentioned, is increasing its number of warheads pretty dramatically with two new intercontinental ballistic missile systems and a new submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missile system. Russia, with its thousands and thousands of warheads—far more than it could possibly want—is building new nuclear weapons systems and new nuclear submarines for the delivery of those systems. We are not living in a world that is disarming, despite the incredibly generous gestures that our country has made. The next move downwards is not for us, but for others. If others will not make those moves, we must continue to guarantee our security and that of our allies.
	I end on one fundamental point. Much is being made of the cost of Trident. I respect the view of those who over the years have been proved wrong but nevertheless carry on with their campaign to disarm our nuclear weapons. However, nothing is less honest than the idea that there is some cheaper system that will maintain the deterrent effect of our nuclear weapons or that somehow our current weapons system is vastly overspecified because of the Moscow criterion, to which completely obscure and mad reference has been made. That has nothing to do with the capability that we deploy today. It is totally irrelevant and a means of spreading disinformation about the credibility of our system so that the Liberal Democrats can get rid of our nuclear weapons system.
	The Liberal Democrats know that there is no cheaper system. Just how cheap is it? It represents 0.1% of GDP over the lifetime of the system. I challenge anybody to produce any defence expenditure that can produce so much global influence.

Pete Wishart: I have three minutes to put the case for a peaceful, non-nuclear Scotland liberated from the menace of Trident.
	When we secure the levers of power and we have the responsibility for defence, we will not have Trident in Scotland. That is not just the view of the Scottish National party but the desired will of the Scottish people. Opinion poll after opinion poll has found that the Scottish people do not want this menace. The Churches do not want it, the Scottish Trades Union Conference does not want it, and the overwhelming majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament do not want it, as they said when tested in a vote in 2007. Scotland is not going to have it—with independence we will shove it out of our country and it will not be in our waters.
	Trident is emerging as an iconic issue in the Scottish independence referendum; in fact, it is probably one of the main issues. Is it not therefore sad and depressing that not one Labour Back Bencher has spoken in this debate? It took an hour to find one to come and inhabit those Benches. Is that not an absolute and utter disgrace?

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Pete Wishart: I cannot give way; the Whips told me not to.
	This is not just about retaining these abhorrent weapons, as the UK is the only country in the world that is indulging in unilateral nuclear rearmament. The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) rightly pointed out that Trident will cost, over its lifetime,
	£100 billion—an almost incomprehensible figure. It is a weapon designed for another age. It is designed to take on not the Bin Ladens of this world but the Brezhnevs. Yes, there are new threats in the world, as we are now seeing in Algeria and in Mali, but nothing would delight those insurgents more than our threatening them with nuclear weapons. While Trident is perhaps the least equipped weapon possible to deal with the challenges of the modern world, we are in the middle of a triple-dip recession. We are told that we have to ensure years and years of Tory austerity and that household incomes are going down month by month, yet we have to spend billions and billions of pounds on a weapon that we hope will never be used, and that is a moral abomination.
	We will get rid of these weapons. An independent Scotland will make decisions that reflect Scotland’s interests and values. We will use our share of the cost of Trident to create jobs that meet the defence, economic and public service priorities of an independent Scotland. Our percentage share of the cost of running Trident is £163 million per year. Let us imagine what we could do with that money in rebuilding our public services and creating the conventional defence force that Scotland needs. [Interruption.] Here we go—every time we get to our feet we are heckled by Scottish Labour Members, and this is another example. They just cannot keep quiet—it is so typical. [Interruption.] They are still at it. I do not know if the cameras can pick it up, but it is always the same in these debates.
	The Scottish people have a great opportunity to rid themselves of this evil weapon: if they want Trident out, they can vote yes for Scottish independence. The case for Scottish independence is compelling, and being able to rid Scotland of these evil weapons of mass destruction just helps that case.

Penny Mordaunt: I want to speak in support of continuous at-sea deterrence—CASD—and explain why it is still relevant and required. Those who disagree tend to mischaracterise the threat in terms of their assessment of the behaviours and future intentions of specific nation states, or underestimate the threat from hostile non-state organisations, or conclude that CASD is a redundant concept because there may be emerging threats that it cannot effectively deter. Such arguments often hinge on the premise that one or more of the necessary conditions for credible deterrence is missing, those conditions being that the aggressor we are seeking to deter has rational political leadership, that the behaviours to be deterred must be a genuine threat to the vital interests of the UK, and that there is a concept of use—an identifiable capability and a declared policy of intent. Opponents of CASD say that there will be no re-emergence of a major direct threat, otherwise known as Russia. They say that other hostile states, such as Iran, fail the rationality criterion to justify the retention of the deterrent, that CASD is of no use against a non-state terrorist organisation whose identity might be unknown and, even if it is known, that there may be no target against which to retaliate.
	I say—this is at the heart of the issue—that it is not possible to predict with absolute certainty the intentions or future actions of countries such as North Korea, or what might happen if China, for example, fell under
	the control of a malign regime. To dismiss Iran’s foreign policy as irrational is also a mistake. It might be unpredictable and it is certainly obnoxious, but that is not the same as irrational. To reject the deterrent—which works in most scenarios—because it does not work in all scenarios is also illogical.
	Finally, Russia’s behaviour towards NATO is becoming increasingly aggressive. Last year, Russia’s chief of general staff spoke openly about a first strike against US missile defence installations in Poland and Romania, and Putin shunned both the Chicago summit and the G8. Most commentators are pointing towards growing instability in Russia, a country that, we estimate, today has 12,000 warheads, 4,650 of which are active. We cannot dismiss the possibility of Russia being a real threat over the lifetime of the next generation of the deterrent.
	That is the world we live in and it is the world we must prepare for when we renew our capabilities. If we reject CASD, we ought not to kid ourselves that it is not just the UK’s status and influence that we would lose, or that we would successfully achieve our prime duty as parliamentarians and as a Government to protect the United Kingdom, including those who live in Scotland.

Caroline Lucas: I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate, but sad that I have such a short time in which to do so.
	I want to start by considering the overall concept of security and deterrents. I believe that we need a mix of tools for deterrence and security, rather than investing blind faith in voodoo defence based on a cold war weapon that cannot deter, but that certainly can obliterate all of us.
	The greatest security threats that we face today are related to climate change and international terrorism. Those are things that nuclear weapons cannot help us with; rather, they deter and take resources away from addressing those issues.
	When the leaders of our armed forces and security services balked at the Chancellor’s plans to charge the Ministry of Defence the full cost of replacing Trident, they exposed their own lack of faith in the notion that nuclear weapons give us deterrence and security. In a letter to The Times, three of those leaders—Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham and General Sir Hugh Beach—said:
	“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face—particularly international terrorism; and the more you analyse them the more unusable they appear”.
	If Trident really fulfilled the deterrence myths and claims that underpin the Government’s case for spending billions on its replacement, those responsible for our security would surely consider it well worth the money, but they do not. They know full well that Trident is political vanity and irrelevant to our real security needs.
	It is time we stopped calling Trident “the deterrent,” as if that were its identity. That was a public relations euphemism from the early days of the cold war. It was meant to cut off debate by making nuclear weapons sound as if they were safe and sensible, so it was made impossible to ask the real questions, such as: does the deterrent deter? If we ask that question, we will soon come to the conclusion that it is short-sighted and dangerous in the extreme for Britain to rely on a weapon
	of mass destruction which, if launched, would put our own survival at serious risk, as well as that of many others.
	If we are seriously to debate deterrence, let us do so honestly and recognise the complex relationship that requires us to understand the fears, threat perceptions, needs and values of others, and to communicate carefully and effectively. The best deterrence of all is to work with other nations to solve global threats such as fossil fuel-induced climate disruption, transnational trafficking in weapons, and the poverty and desperation that fuel hunger, conflict and violence cause around the world. Calling Trident “the deterrent” does not confer on it the capability to deter any more than calling a cat a dog would give the cat the ability to bark.
	Secondly, I will touch briefly on the upcoming inter- governmental efforts to ban nuclear weapons. The Government of Norway, who have worked closely with the MOD and Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston on projects to verify nuclear weapons, are hosting a major international conference in Oslo in early March, where the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons will be addressed by more than 100 Governments. I am pleased that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has told Norway that we will send a delegation to that important conference, but I plead with the Government to play a constructive role. As the focus is mainly on the humanitarian consequences of detonating nuclear weapons, I ask the Government what studies of nuclear weapons and their humanitarian effects they have undertaken that they will be sharing with their colleagues.
	The expert studies on the short and longer-term effects of nuclear detonation are shocking. Let us consider the environmental, climate, agricultural and medical effects. If just a fraction of today’s nuclear arsenals were detonated, in what is termed a “limited nuclear war”, the studies point to climate disruption, widespread radioactivity and global famine. In other words, if the Trident weapons that are carried on just one British submarine were launched at Moscow and nearby cities, the effect would be a worldwide humanitarian disaster. That is immoral and obscene, and it should not be done.

Oliver Colvile: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on securing this debate.
	I support maintaining a nuclear deterrent because it is the reason for our seat on the United Nations Security Council, it is the cement in our relationship with the United States of America, and it helps us to play a key part in NATO. This is an important debate. The nuclear licence is vital to my constituency. It is our stake in the ground and we must ensure that lots of work comes out of it. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is very supportive of Plymouth remaining a strategic naval port. Some 25,000 people in my constituency and travel-to-work area are dependent on the defence industry for their jobs.
	I want two things out of today’s debate. First, I want a commitment that the Labour party will not do a deal of any description with any potential coalition partner—whether the Liberal Democrats or any other party—on giving away the nuclear deterrent. Secondly, I do not want any more money to be spent in Scotland until it
	has worked out whether it wants to be part of the United Kingdom. In that way, we can ensure that we hold on to our nuclear deterrent and send the simple message that Nelson’s sailors used to give as a toast: “Confusion to the enemy!”

Jeremy Corbyn: I will have to be very brief.
	We must be clear that nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and can only kill indiscriminately millions of civilians. We have enough nuclear capability in our 48-warhead submarines for a nuclear kill 384 times greater than that in Hiroshima in 1945—the only time when nuclear weapons have been used.
	To replace the Trident system and procure new warheads would cost us £100 billion over 25 years. I dread to think that any Government in 2016, of whatever party, faced with all the social problems of this country—with the stress on housing, health, education, employment and infrastructure—would commit us to £100 billion-worth of weapons of mass destruction. That would achieve precisely what? It does not protect our position as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations. It does not give us moral authority around the world. It has the opposite effect. I ask the House this question: when issues are raised in the world’s councils, who has greater moral authority—South Africa, which gave up its nuclear weapons specifically to ensure that there was an African nuclear-free zone, or Britain, which seeks to rearm unilaterally in order, apparently, to protect its status around the world? It does not defend us. It does not protect us. It does nothing but cost us a great deal of money.
	I aspire to live in a nuclear-free world. It has been achieved in Latin America. It has been achieved in Africa. It has been achieved in central Asia. It has been achieved in Antarctica. There is real hope that, with the assistance of the Finnish Government and the UN, we will eventually achieve a nuclear weapons-free middle east, when Iran and Israel are brought together to the conference table to bring that great aspiration about. We live in a time when we can take a huge step forward. Our country can take a huge step forward by saying, “We do not see weapons of mass destruction as a defence; we see them as a threat and a danger. Accordingly, we will not replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, but will instead support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to ensure that that happy day comes about.”
	The MPs around the world who have signed the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament network statement to bring about nuclear weapons-free zones are to be commended. World opinion is against nuclear weapons, which is also to be commended.
	I finish with a point echoing that made by my Friend—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there any way we can get a Minister from the Department for Education to the Chamber to explain the extraordinary attack in The Spectator blog this afternoon on the former Minister with responsibility for children, the hon. Member for
	East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), by senior sources at the Department, who have described him, among other things, as
	“a lazy incompetent narcissist obsessed only with self-promotion”?
	I have informed him that I am raising this matter on a point of order. Should not the Secretary of State come to the House to explain whether that vicious attack is his view of his hon. Friend and erstwhile ministerial colleague?

Dawn Primarolo: The very short answer is no, I cannot. That is not a point of order—I think the hon. Gentleman knows that. A point of order has to be a matter for this Chamber, but he has his point on the record, and I am afraid he will have to be satisfied with that.

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intervene on a point of order, but we have just had a good and interesting debate on nuclear weapons, and the time obviously had to be reduced. Some hon. Members did not get in and others withdrew from the debate because they were not going to do so. Could we invite the Backbench Business Committee to look favourably on having another debate on the subject in the foreseeable future, because there is far greater parliamentary interest than was anticipated when the debate was called for by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the number of hon. Members who supported him?

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Corbyn, I think you know that that is not a point of order either, particularly seeing as the Backbench Business Committee’s determination of business in the House is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that when the Committee reads Hansard, it will take his remarks as an early bid, particularly if he has greater support for such a debate.

Mike Gapes: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that the Government will publish—at least internally—and consider their review on the alternatives to Trident, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is in his place, will give the House a commitment that we will have the chance to debate the review in this House very soon.

Dawn Primarolo: Well, Mr Gapes, perhaps the Minister could do that, but I do not think he will. That is not a point of order. I would like to make progress with business, because I am sure there are not any other relevant or pertinent points of order to take this afternoon.

STREET LIGHTING (RESIDENTIAL AREAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Andy Sawford: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in Parliament an issue of great importance to people in my constituency of Corby and in East Northamptonshire. The earliest street lights were used by Greek and Roman civilizations. They were used in Egypt more than a thousand years ago. They were common in the UK by the time wax candles turned to electric candles. Electricity transformed the efficiency and effectiveness of street lighting, which for well over 100 years has illuminated our towns and cities. From the Romans to the Victorians to today, street lights have been a civilising force in our communities. They help us to move about more safely, whether on foot or cycle, or in our cars or on public transport. They help us to be safer from crime, whether that is crime on the person, vehicle crime or burglary. In short, they are essential to our safety and security.
	Street lights give us a greater sense of well-being; they give us more confidence as darkness falls; and they help us to go about our business, whether going to or returning from work, including those who work shifts. They help us when we are going to a social club, a pub, a church group, a gym, or when we are visiting family or friends or popping to the shops. Most of us, most of the time, for most of our lives, have taken street lighting for granted, but suddenly, in many communities in the UK, it is not there.
	Let us imagine the iconic scene, if you will Madam Deputy Speaker, of Gene Kelly under a lamp post. He is about to sing in the rain, except that he cannot because he cannot see to dance and we cannot see to watch him—his council has switched the street lights off. So it has been in Corby and East Northamptonshire for the past 18 months. A darkness has fallen across our towns and villages; a dark age, rolling back time, as though we live in a time before civilisation, before electricity, and before councils and local government and all the good that they can do to make our places liveable and our communities strong, safe and vibrant.
	In 2011, Northamptonshire county council turned off more than 30,000 street lights. The off switch was pressed on approximately half the lights in the county. The general pattern was every other light. In some places, more were off. There was little consultation, precious little listening, and even less consideration of the implications, both generally for people’s safety and well-being and specifically about those highways, alleyways and pathways where the arbitrary turning off of street lights would have a particular impact.
	Two reasons were given. The first was to save money in the face of drastic cuts from central Government. Let me say that I do not support that scale and pace of the introduction of those cuts to our councils. They have been hugely damaging to our communities and our economy, all part of an approach that has plunged the UK into a second recession and stopped the economy growing. Perhaps the Minister and I can leave that debate to another day and accept that councils need to make efficiencies. They need to ensure that their budgets are balanced.
	Local authorities have many important responsibilities and one is street lighting, which at pre-cuts levels in Northamptonshire cost just 0.08% of the council’s budget. I will put that more simply and in language that I, and everybody I represent, can understand: it costs each household £1.14 a year to have decent street lighting. That is a very small price to pay for adequate street lighting, and I think all the residents in Corby and East Northamptonshire would see that as good value for money. The council tells us that its cuts had an environmental rationale—to replace the lights with more energy-efficient, cost-efficient and effective lighting. I think that is right in principle, but let us look at what it did in practice.
	The council should have had a plan for switching over to newer, more energy-efficient lighting that did not involve turning off half the lights first for several years. It should have had a plan that did not involve putting people’s safety at risk. A nine-year-old boy who was taken to hospital after being hit by a car at a pedestrian crossing on Oakley road in Corby. The street lights had been turned off near a pedestrian crossing. The county council stated that because the road has a 40 mph limit
	“this meant it required fewer street lights to be left on”.
	The boy was treated and he recovered. The council did not take responsibility, but the lights were turned back on. It should not take an accident before the council acts properly and sensibly in the public interest.
	When the streetlights were first turned off people said, “There will be an accident there before long”, and so it proved: prangs and bumps, trips and falls. However, for many more, the fear of accidents prevented them from going out at all, as did the fear of crime. When the county council started turning off lights, more than 1,200 people signed up to the “Corby Street Lights” Facebook page. Across Northamptonshire, people protested. Stefano in Raunds pressed the council to turn street lights back on in Primrose Hill, where elderly residents feel unsafe. Sonia, a mum of three in Corby, told the Northamptonshire Telegraph, which is represented in the Gallery today for this debate:
	“The main thing is a complete lack of consultation. I have been a victim of crime myself. I have had wing mirrors kicked off and car windows broken. Come winter it is going to be dark at 4.30 pm and it is like imposing a curfew if you are old or infirm.”
	Those people in my constituency are supported in their concerns and first-hand experiences by much evidence that the Minister will no doubt be aware of. A systematic review by the Home Office on the effects of street lighting on crime found that
	“improved street lighting led to significant reductions in crime...with an overall reduction in recorded crime of 20 per cent”.
	in towns across the UK. I think that the Minister will agree that something that results in a 20% reduction in crime is a good thing.
	The Institute of Lighting Engineers believes that
	“the many benefits street lighting provides the community far outweigh the limited returns that can be achieved by switching off or removing lighting”.
	Cambridge criminologist David Farrington said that
	“improved street lighting should continue to be used to prevent crime in public areas. It has few negative effects and clear benefits for law-abiding citizens”.
	Paul Watters, head of policy at the AA, said that turning off the street lights
	“may save money in terms of energy, but then you have to look at the cost in terms of security, safety and accidents and it may actually be more”.

Michael Ellis: I am a fellow Northamptonshire MP. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been considerable consultation on this matter? The county council has indicated that it consulted via its YouChoose website, comment cards available at libraries, tweeting, e-mails and contacting the local press and other representative organisations. Does he also agree that a lot of the measures that the county council has had to take are because of the profligate spending of the previous Labour Government?

Andy Sawford: I do not agree. If that is the best that the hon. Gentleman has to offer on his constituents’ concerns about street lighting, I am very disappointed in him. The things he describes are an example of what people in my constituency call “nonsultation”—when people consult but do not listen. That is what happened in this case.
	Let me tell the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Let me tell him, if he will listen, about the case of Gary Tompkins, a 25-year-old man in Milton Keynes who died after being hit by a car. Let me tell him what the coroner said—the Minister will be interested in this, too. The coroner found that turning off of the road lights contributed to this death, and that
	“no formal risk assessment was carried out by the council before the decision was made”.
	I am not aware of a proper risk assessment taking place in Northamptonshire, and that is why people such as the nine-year-old child in my constituency were injured.
	In Dorset, street lights are being turned back on following a spate of arson attacks on cars. Through these cases, in my constituency and many others, a pattern emerges of councils playing “street light roulette”. They over-eagerly turn them off without sufficient risk assessment and proper consultation, someone gets hurt or property gets damaged and the council looks again at the street lights and starts to turn them back on. That is no way to ensure public safety.
	The Highway Electrical Association will publish research next month that, following a comprehensive review of switch-offs across the UK, will recommend the following approach for councils to take. First, it will recommend that the local authority should carry out a detailed risk analysis of lighting provision and particular areas of concern, and secondly that the local authority should then determine what can be done with the existing lighting. Lots of councils around the country have looked at whether they can switch of, or dim, the lights at certain times of the night, and they have looked at areas where the lighting is less important to public safety. I think we can all support that as a sensible approach.
	Thirdly, the report will advise that local authorities, before taking any action, should consult properly with residents and other stakeholders. Those three steps, which were not taken in Northamptonshire, seem to make good sense. I hope that the Minister will agree and endorse this approach. That is one positive outcome that could come from this Adjournment debate.
	If Northamptonshire county council had acted properly, I would not have heard from Mr Robson, who contacted me to tell me that
	“when he and his co-workers finish after midnight, they face walking along Willowbrook road. Part of the path here goes into the woods, where all the lights have been turned off”.
	Neither would I have heard from Ann Leonard, the secretary of the Corby co-operative women’s guild, who tells me that the group leave all together and help each other into their cars, because they are afraid. Darren Melville told me that he has had to stop going on his regular runs. Not only did he find it difficult to see where he was stepping, which led to a couple of falls, but he no longer felt safe.
	Many right hon. and hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, know how Mr Melville feels, because they too have walked the streets of my constituency. During the by-election, our teams used head torches to get around, and on doorstep after doorstep they met residents who raised concerns about street lights. That is why it is one of my top priorities and remains so.
	On Saturday, I was out campaigning in Irthlingborough in my constituency. I met residents on Meadow walk, a road of old people’s bungalows, where all the lights are out. People there not only feel afraid to go out, but feel trapped and afraid in their homes. This becomes even more pertinent in the depths of winter, and not just because of the long nights and short days. My constituent Matthew Reay said to me that
	“it is particularly worrying that lights are off during a period in which most paths and roads are covered in ice”.
	Northamptonshire county council has not properly addressed the concerns. People have been told, “You need a security alarm”, or, “Get yourself a torch”, when they have complained to the council about specific problems. There is a better way. Sheffield city council has shown a better way of investing in white LED lights, which are better and brighter, and Salford city council has done the same. Looking ahead, I want to see the street lights being turned back on in Corby and investment in more energy and cost-efficient lighting, but we need our street lighting now, in the interest of public safety, and we need a programme of replacement that does not compromise that safety as we go forward.
	Perhaps even in the dimly lit corners of Eland House, where the Parliamentary Under-Secretary toils, some thought and consideration is being given to the proper way in which councils should conduct their business. I ask him to use the power of the Dispatch Box this evening and the power of his pen tomorrow to prevail on Northamptonshire county council to light properly the towns and villages of Northamptonshire once again.

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) on securing this evening’s debate. I am pleased to be responding to what I believe is his first Adjournment debate since becoming a Member of Parliament last November, on what is clearly a subject of great importance to him. I also congratulate him on his speech. He started with a number of clearly well researched historical facts. He could have easily
	answered the question “What have the Romans ever done for us?”, although I was greatly pleased that he resisted the temptation to sing and dance.
	It might be helpful if I begin by saying a few words about the background on street lighting in residential areas more generally before I talk about the specifics of the hon. Gentleman’s case. Street lighting is often taken for granted, but it is an important service for local communities. Most residential street lighting in England is the responsibility of local highway authorities. Local authorities, such as Northamptonshire county council, which covers his constituency, have a duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the public highways in their charge. That duty covers street lighting. That said, authorities do not have a duty to light any particular parts of their networks, but where lighting has been provided, the authority has a duty to maintain it. It is therefore for each local highway authority to decide what level of service it wishes its street lighting network to deliver. It is also up to the authority to decide on the appropriate technical solution to ensure suitable lighting of its highways, as well as deciding what level of funding is appropriate to maintain its lighting networks.
	I am aware that many councils are now taking a proactive approach, looking at a number of ways to reduce their overall funding programmes. Some councils are thinking innovatively about how to deliver their services, and that thought is indeed being inspired by the Ministers at Eland House. I, of course, toil at Great Minister House as opposed to Eland House, which is where the Department for Communities and Local Government resides. I know that my hon. Friends who reside at Eland House are encouraging local authorities up and down the country to look at new and innovative ways of delivering services to their communities.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, many authorities are looking at ways of delivering their street lighting commitments. Many are implementing a policy of dimming street lights between midnight and 6 am or even turning them off during those hours. Some, such as Northamptonshire county council, have taken further steps and decided to turn some lights off completely. Let me be clear: central Government have no powers to override local decisions in these matters, nor should it be the job of bureaucrats or Ministers in Whitehall to dictate to local government how it determines local solutions.
	Let me turn to Northamptonshire’s street lighting policy. I am aware that when considering its budgets—in light of the challenge to everybody after the profligate spending of the last Labour Administration—the county council’s cabinet considered a proposal in 2010 to make £1 million of savings by changing the county’s street lighting policy. As part of that exercise, including the consultation, the council made it clear that its intention was not just to make savings, but to respond to a growing recognition in many parts of Northamptonshire that the pre-switch-off policy had been somewhat over-engineered and was not as energy efficient as it could be. The county council also stated that it wanted to reconsider street lighting as part of its overall environmental agenda.

Michael Ellis: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not only a question of energy efficiency and energy savings, but—as usual—of hearing the Labour Opposition reject any form of savings without offering any ideas on how they would save instead, in times of austerity that are due largely to Labour overspending for many years?

Stephen Hammond: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend.
	I shall touch on a solution that Northamptonshire county council offered to Corby in a moment. The council decided in January 2011 that it should find an additional £1 million saving from its street lighting, bringing the total amount of savings that it wished to achieve to some £2 million per annum. The council undertook a consultation on its proposals, which was promoted in the local press as well as on the council’s website. I know that many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents had concerns about that process, and felt that it was not sufficiently widespread.
	The council commenced switching off lights in April 2011, and the process continued through to August of that year. Out of the council’s asset of 67,000 street lights, almost 30,000 were switched off. In Corby, 3,681 of the 8,275 lights have now been switched off. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in response to some of the criticisms of the consultation process, a further consultation was carried out with county councillors.

Andy Sawford: I am slightly confused by the Minister’s approach. He says that it is not his position to direct the local authority, but I have not asked him to do that; I am a localist. I have, however, asked him to advise me on the Government’s position, in the light of all the research that I have highlighted, including that of the Home Office. He seems to be reading from a brief from the county council, which can well speak for itself, rather than setting out the Government’s position on this matter.

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has made his speech, and if he will forgive me, I am now setting out the Government’s overall responsibility and the liabilities and duties of county councils. I am setting out the situation, as he did, and if he will wait a few minutes longer, I will make some comments on the Government’s response. It is important to set out the case, so that we can understand it and so that we can all agree on what is actually happening. That is what I am attempting to do.
	I have just made the point that, in response to criticism, the county council carried out a further consultation. The chief executives of all of the county’s borough and district councils were sent letters and invited to meetings on street policy. Written responses were received from three borough councils in Northamptonshire, including Corby, which asked that the lights be put back on in crime or accident hot spots. I think that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the county council has addressed some of those concerns, and that changes were made to the policy as a result, specifically in regard to the reduction of repair times, as well as to switching the lights back on.
	During the switch-off period across Northamptonshire, the public were invited to submit appeals if they felt that the proposed policy was not being correctly applied. In theory, that appeal period was due to end in September 2011, but in practice it was extended until December 2012. During that period, the council considered some 4,000 appeals and, as a result, nearly 1,000 street lights were turned back on.
	I understand that the leader of Northamptonshire county council met the leader of Corby borough council—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present at
	that meeting—to try to come to some arrangement on the street lights in Corby, and offered to switch back on any lights that the borough council wanted to be kept on, so long as the borough provided a 50% funding contribution. I also understand that, although the borough council has made a certain amount of noise, it has not yet taken up that offer.

Chris Heaton-Harris: My constituents were affected in the same way as Corby residents, but a number of parishes across my constituency pay for their own street lighting. I have thus received almost as many letters complaining that people were having to pay twice for street lighting across the county as I did from those complaining about switching off the lights in inappropriate places.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
	Before I leave Northamptonshire, it is worth saying—and it is important to point out—that the reduced energy usage that the change in policy will have yielded by the end of March 2013 is expected to be approximately 10,500 tonnes of carbon saving, and there will be annual savings in excess of 5,000 tonnes in the future.

Andy Sawford: Given that the Minister has chosen to focus many of his remarks on local research about how Corby council responded, let me remind him that my constituency covers two local authorities. I have mentioned examples in Raunds and Irthlingborough in another local authority. In the interests of balance, those people might be interested to know the Minister’s views on how their local authority responded, the number of lights turned off in their areas, and so forth. That would be very interesting.

Stephen Hammond: I am happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman with the numbers, but my point is that Corby did respond and it was made an offer. [Interruption.] I am saying that Corby did respond to the leader of the county council, who then made an offer to respond to Corby council’s demands. So far, Corby council has not responded.
	Let me say a few words about the Government’s policy on street lighting. It is, of course, right that local authorities, not central Government, consider—in the interests of cost-saving and the environment—whether lighting can be sensibly dimmed or switched off, consistent with proper safety assessments. We are aware that a number of local authorities around the country have commenced similar lighting projects to deliver energy savings and carbon usage reductions. Guidance produced by the Institution of Lighting Professionals is available for any local authority that wants to adopt such a scheme. We are aware that a number of local authorities are taking the decision, following traffic incidents, to switch some lights back to an all-night operation at certain locations, as the hon. Gentleman said. It is, as I have said, the duty of the local authority to ensure that street lighting is maintained if it has chosen to provide it.
	The hon. Gentleman raises perfectly reasonable concerns about possible increases in crime. That is understandable, and the reduction of street lighting might cause some people to question their safety and security. However,
	evidence to date from authorities up and down the country that have adopted switching-off policies between midnight and 6 am, or have switched off lights permanently, shows no relationship at the moment between reduced street lighting and increases in crime levels. That has been backed up by a number of police authorities, which have made statements to confirm that crime levels have not increased since councils adopted the policy of switching off lights between midnight and 6 am.
	The Department is aware of work undertaken last year by Warwickshire county council, which contacted 30 local authorities to see whether there was any measurable impact on crime or road safety. The evidence is not conclusive, but from the monitoring undertaken by the county council and by these authorities so far, no significant increases in either crime levels or road accidents have been reported. There will be individual cases, and I offer my sympathy to the young gentleman who was knocked down, but nationally recognised research papers, including Home Office research, are similarly inconclusive on this point.
	The Government would, of course, advise that any authority should work closely with the emergency services, community safety and other key partners when considering the street-lighting needs of local people. We also advise local authorities to monitor the impacts following implementation of any street-lighting changes and to ensure they have provision for reversing any of the changes, should the need arise.
	So, in conclusion, remote monitoring, dimming, trimming and switching off of street lights can play an important part in reducing energy costs, light pollution and carbon emissions. That is clearly a matter for local authorities.
	I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He made a powerful case on behalf of his constituents, and I note the concerns that were expressed. I suggest that he should continue to raise them directly with the county council.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.